Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Hon’ble Subhash Vidyarthi J.
Bhagirath Prasad Sharma – Petitioner
Versus
State Of UP And Others – Respondents
WRIT - A No. - 9709 of 2024
Decided On : 09-07-2024
Writ Petition - Salary Difference Claim - Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Limitation Act, 1963 - The court discussed the applicability of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, emphasizing that while there is no fixed limitation period for writ petitions, claims must be made with reasonable promptitude. The court referenced the Limitation Act, 1963, and established principles regarding delay and laches, particularly in service-related claims. The court concluded that stale claims, particularly those exceeding three years, would not be entertained, reinforcing the need for timely action in seeking redress.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the rejection of his representation for payment of salary difference for the post of officiating Principal from June 2006 to June 2009, arguing that he was entitled to the salary based on a Full Bench judgment that recognized the right to salary for officiating positions. The Deputy Director of Education rejected the claim, citing the absence of a provision for such payment at the time.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner raised his claim for the first time after more than 13 years, which was deemed stale. The court emphasized that the principles of delay and laches apply, and that the mere submission of a representation does not revive a dead cause of action. The court upheld the Deputy Director's decision, stating that the claim could not be entertained due to the significant delay.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to claim salary differences for a period exceeding 15 years, and whether the principles of delay and laches barred the claim.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that claims for salary differences must be made within a reasonable time frame, and that stale claims, particularly those exceeding three years, are not maintainable. The court emphasized that the submission of representations does not create a fresh cause of action for stale claims.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed on the grounds of delay and laches, affirming that the claim for salary difference was not maintainable due to the significant lapse of time.
JUDGMENT :
Hon’ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.
1. Heard Sri Om Prakash Chaube, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pradipta Kumar Shahi, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
2. By means of the instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity of an order dated 20.01.2024 passed by the respondent no. 5 -Deputy Director of Education (Secondary), Jhansi rejecting the petitioner’s representation for payment of difference in salary for the post of officiating Principal for the period June, 2006 to 30.06.2009, on the ground that there was no provision of payment of salary of a post held on officiating basis at that point of time.
3. Earlier the petitioner had filed a Writ-A No. 227 of 2023 with the following prayers: -
ii. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No.3 and 4 to consider the claim/representation dated 14.12.2022/16.12.2022 submitted by the petitioner before him with in stipulated time.”
4. The aforesaid Writ A No. 227 of 2023 was decided by an order dated 15.02.2023, which states that:
On the other hand, it is argued by the learned Standing Counsel that the respondent no.5 namely Deputy Director of Education (Secondary) Jhansi Division Jhansi will take a decision in the matter within a period of six weeks thereafter.
At this stage, a prayer has been made by the counsel for the petitioner that petitioner may be permitted to make a fresh representation.
In view of the above, without entering in to the merits of the case, the present writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh comprehensive representation ventilating all his grievances before the respondent no. 5/Deputy Director of Education (Secondary) Jhansi Division Jhansi within a period of three weeks from today along with certified copy of this order and in case any such representation is filed by the petitioner before the respondent no. 5 within the time indicated hereinabove, he shall consider and decide the same strictly in accordance with law by a speaking and reasoned order as expeditiously and preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of filing of such representation by the petitioner before him.”
5. Apparently, the petitioner had not sought a writ of mandamus for payment of difference in salary for the post of officiating Principal for the period January 2006 to 30.06.2009 even in the earlier writ petition and he had merely sought a direction for disposal of his representations dated 14.12.2022/16.12.2022, wherein he had claimed payment of difference in salary as aforesaid.
6. Thus it appears that the petitioner raised the claim of payment of difference in salary for the period June 2006 to 2009 for the first time through his representation dated 14.12.2022/16.12.2022, i.e., that is after expiry of more than 13 years.
7. By means of the impugned order dated 20.01.2024, the Deputy Director Education (Secondary Education) has rejected the petitioner’s representation on the ground that the petitioner had worked as officiating principle for the period June 2006 to 30.06.2009 and at that point of time there was no provision for making payment of salary of Principal to a teacher who worked on the post on officiating basis.
8. In is relevant to note that a Full bench of this Court had held in Jai Prakash Narayan Singh v. State of U.P., 2014 SCC OnLine All 15392 = (2014) 6 All LJ 668, that once the nature of that power is construed as a power to make an
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.
Belated service claims for pay increments rejected due to unexplained delay, laches and acquiescence; prolonged inaction implies consent, barring relief to uphold administrative finality.
The court established that inordinate delay in seeking legal remedy, especially in service-related claims, can bar relief, and that the doctrine of delay and laches is a critical consideration in the....
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
