Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
JYOTSNA REWAL DUA
Chander Lal Negi – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's service history and pre-promotion increment claim. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
JUDGMENT :
JYOTSNA REWAL DUA, J.
Petitioner, aged 75 years, has instituted this writ petition seeking following substantive reliefs:-
“i). That the writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondent department to grant
one annual increment to the petitioner which was earned by the petitioner on the post of Tehsildar and
was due on 1.11.2007.
ii). That in the alternative the respondents may kindly be directed to grant him the proportionate amount of
increment earned by the petitioner until his joining the promotional post on 18.10.2007.”
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and onsidered the case file.
3. The case set up by the petitioner is that:-
3(i). He was initially appointed as Patwari and promoted as Tehsildar on ad-hoc basis on 20.06.1997. Petitioner’s services were regularized as Tehsildar on 01.03.2006 in the pay scale of Rs.7000-10980/-. Consequent upon regularization, petitioner’s pay was re-fixed from the date of joining as Tehsildar on ad-hoc basis by notionally adding one increment in the lower pay scale of Naib Tehsildar as per
Belated service claims for pay increments rejected due to unexplained delay, laches and acquiescence; prolonged inaction implies consent, barring relief to uphold administrative finality.
Claims for service regularization must be timely; significant delays can render them inadmissible due to laches.
Delay and laches bar service claims, particularly where acquiescence and potential impact on third-party rights are involved.
Belated post-retirement claim to switch from CPF to GPF pension rejected due to unexplained delay, laches, acquiescence by non-response to 2008 opportunity, and factual distinction from precedents on....
A claim for family pension can be denied if the termination of employment was based on false documents and the challenge to that termination is barred by delay and acquiescence.
Claims for salary differences must be pursued within a reasonable time, and stale claims exceeding three years are not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
