Delay and laches bar service claims, particularly where acquiescence and potential impact on third-party rights are involved.

ORDER :

1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 15.01.2025 (Annexure-15), whereby the petitioner’s claim for fixation of salary, pay, and other consequential benefits was rejected. The petitioner also sought a direction to the respondents to regularize and confirm his services on the post of Teacher, Grade-III, from the date of his initial appointment, along with all consequential benefits.

2. The sum and substance of the case of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed to the post of Teacher, Grade-III in the office of Panchayat Samiti, Bhadesar, District Chittorgarh, on 31.08.1970. Subsequently, vide order dated 15.09.1971, the petitioner was appointed on an urgent temporary basis at the Primary School, Bordiya. Thereafter, the petitioner participated in the selection process conducted by Panchayat Samiti, Arnod, for the post of Teacher and was declared successful. Vide proceedings dated 30.06.1972, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Teacher, Grade-III on probation for a period of two years, and he joined his duties on 01.07.1972. The District Collector, Chittorgarh, in pursuance of the Standing Committee meeting held on 16.01.1976, vide letter dated 12.03.1976, confirmed the services of the petitioner upon completion of probation, treating his appointment as effective from 20.09.1971.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that his appointment to the post of Teacher, Grade-III was wrongly reckoned as 20.09.1971 instead of 31.08.1970. In effect, the petitioner seeks regularization of his services from the date he was initially appointed on an urgent temporary basis. The proceedings of the District Collector, Chittorgarh, dated 12.03.1976, clearly indicate that the petitioner’s date of appointment was taken as 20.09.1971 and not 31.08.1970. The petitioner retired from service upon attaining the age of superannuation on 31.10.2008, and his pension was fixed on the basis of the appointment date of 20.09.1971. However, the petitioner has been making representations before the respondent authorities to rectify the discrepancy in pay fixation. According to the petitioner, his date of appointment ought to be reckoned as 31.08.1970 and not 20.09.1971.

4. By the impugned proceedings, the respondent authorities rejected the petitioner’s claim to reckon his date of appointment as 31.08.1970 instead of 20.09.1971. The service record of the petitioner reflects his initial appointment to the substantive post as 20.09.1971. Although an endorsement in the last pay certificate indicates that the petitioner had worked in Panchayat Samiti, Bhadesar, such endorsement was treated as doubtful in nature and was therefore not relied upon.

5. The case of the respondents is that the pay fixation and pension granted to the petitioner were rightly determined on the basis of his service record, wherein his initial appointment to the regular cadre post was reckoned as 20.09.1971. The petitioner’s claim for confirmation of service for the period prior to his appointment to the substantive post cannot be considered, as such service was rendered only on an urgent temporary basis. Furthermore, the service tenure rendered by the petitioner prior to his appointment on the substantive post cannot be agitated at this belated stage. The petitioner’s claim for regularization of service for the period from 31.08.1970 to 20.09.1971 cannot be entertained after a lapse of more than 40 years, particularly when such claim had already been rejected by the District Collector, Chittorgarh, in the year 1976. Had the petitioner been aggrieved by the said order of the District Collector, he ought to have chal