Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(UK) 1914
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
OM PRAKASH LATHWAL – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND – Respondent
WPSS 757 / 2025
Reserved on: 01.07.2025 Delivered on: 14.07.2025 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 757 of 2025 (S/S)
Dr. Om Prakash Lathwal ….......Petitioner Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others …..... Respondents Present : Mr. Ram Pal S. Tomar and Ms. Tanupriya Joshi, Advocates for the petitioner.
Mr. Narain Dutt, Standing Counsel for the State.
JUDGMENT
Per: Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
By means of the instant petition, the petitioner claims arrears of salary; arrears of second and third increments and House Rent Allowance.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. Briefly stated, according to the petitioner, by a letter dated 26.05.2011 of the Principal/Dean, Veer Chandra Singh Garhwali Government Institute of Medical Science and Research, Srinagar, District Pauri Garhwal (“the Medical College”), the petitioner was appointed Medical Superintendent on contractual basis for an initial period of two years with one month probation, which was extendable up to three years subject to satisfactory performance or until regular appointment. The petitioner took up the assignment; he sought extension of his service beyond the initial period of contract, which was to expire on 25.05.2013. But, it was not responded by the respondent authority, however petitioner continued working as a Medical Superintendent even after expiry of two years period. He received salary, etc. Subsequently, due to continued administrative silence the petitioner submitted his resignation on 10.06.2014, which was duly accepted and the petitioner was relieved on 15.07.2014. It is the case of the petitioner that he has not been paid salary, etc. which is detailed in para 18 of the writ petition, as follows:-
Sl. No.
Salary, increment, etc.
Period (from/to)
Arrear
1.
Salary at the rate of Rs.1,25,700/- (Rupees One Lakh Twenty-five Thousand Seven Hundred) per month.
01.05.2014 to 15.07.2014. (2.5 months)
Rs.3,14,250/- (Rupees Three Lakh Fourteen Thousand Two Hundred Fifty).
2.
Second Annual Increment @ Rs.6,000/- (Rupees Six Thousand).
26.05.2013 to 25.05.2014. (12 months)
Rs.72,000/- (Rupees Seventy- Two Thousand)
3.
Third Annual Increment @ Rs.12,000/- (in addition to earlier increment).
26.05.2014 to 15.07.2014. (1 month 20 days).
Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand).
4.
House Rent Allowance @ Rs.6,000/- (Rupees Six Thousand) per month.
01.08.2011 to 31.07.2012, (12 months).
Rs.72,000/- (Rupee Seventy- Two Thousand).
Total Claim
Rs.4,78,250/- (Rupee Four Lakh Seventy Eight Thousand and Two Hundred Fifty).
4. On 17.06.2025, when the petition was presented, this Court observed as follows:-
“How could such claim be entertained after 11 years, in view of the law, as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Others Vs. Tarsem Singh, (2008)8 SCC 678, wherein, in Para 7, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has stated that consequential relief relating to arrears normally should be restricted to a period of 3 years, prior to the date of filing of the writ petition? ”
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the claim of the petitioner is not delayed. He also raised the following submissions:-
i. In the instant case, the petitioner has continuous cause of action; it has never been interpreted or stopped by any administrative order or decision of any of the respondents.
ii. The right to sue accrues only when the claim of the petitioner is denied by the respondents; a cause of action arises when a legal right is infringed or threatened.
iii. In the instant case, the respondents had not denied the claim of the petitioner.
iv. By a communication dated 22.09.2022, the respondent no.3, the Director, Medical Education has informed it to the petitioner that his claim is under process at the level of the respondent no.4, the Principal/Dean of the Medical College.
v. The petitioner had, for the first time, given a representation in the yea
