I N THE HI GH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

AT NAI NI TAL

HON’BLE THE CHI EF JUSTI CE SRI G. NARENDAR

AND

HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE SUBHASH UPADHYAY

25^TH AUGUST, 2025

SPECI AL APPEAL No. 207 OF 2025

Dr. Om Prakash Lathwal …..Appellant.

Versus

State of Uttarakhand and others. …Respondents

Counsel for the appellant : Mr. Tanupriya Joshi, learned counsel.

Counsel for the respondents : Mr. S.S. Chaudhary, learned Standing

Counsel for the State.

JUDGMENT : (per Sri G. Narendar, C.J.)

Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

2. The case of the appellant-writ petitioner is that he has not been paid salary for the period between 01.05.2014 to 15.07.2014, second annual increment for the period between 26.05.2013 to 25.05.2014, third annual increment for the period between 26.05.2014 to 15.07.2014 and HRA for the

period between 01.08.2011 to 31.07.2012.

3. The learned Single Judge, placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of I ndia vs. Tarsem Singh reported in ( 2008) 8 SCC 648, has been

pleased to reject the claim as being hit by delay and laches.

4. The claim relates to the period ending 15^th July,

2014 and the writ petition is of the year 2025.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that several representations were being given.

6. Representations will not extend the limitation. The period of limitation for recovery of monies under the Limitation Act is three years.

7. In that view, we do not find any error or illegality in the reasoning set out by the learned Single Judge. 8. Accordingly, the Appeal stands rejected.

9. After the dictation of the order, learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner places reliance on a ruling of the Apex Court in Shakti Bhog Food I ndustries Ltd. vs. Central Bank of I ndia and another reported in AI R 2020 SC 2721, and particularly relies on Paragraph-14, which reads as under:

“14. Reverting to the argument that exchange of letters or correspondence between the parties cannot be the basis to extend the period of limitation, in our opinion, for the view taken by us hitherto, the same need not be dilated further. Inasmuch as, having noticed from the averments in the plaint that the right to sue accrued to the appellant on receiving letter from the Senior Manager, dated 8.5.2002, and in particular letter dated 19.9.2002, and again on firm refusal by the respondents vide Advocate’s letter dated 23.12.2003 in response to the legal notice sent by the appellant on 28.11.2003; and once again on the follow up legal notice on 7.1.2005, the plaint filed in February, 2005 would be well within limitation. Considering the former events of firm response by the respondents on 8.5.2002 and in particular, 19.9.2002, the correspondence ensued thereafter including the two legal notices sent by the appellant, even if disregarded, the plaint/suit filed on 23.2.2005 would be within limitation in terms of Article 113.”

10. The claim is on the basis of failure to pay.

11. In that view, the question of there being any further denial would not arise. The cause of action arose, even according to the appellant-writ petitioner, in 2014. The date, on which the cause of action arose, is noted in the tabular column in Paragraph No. 3 of the judgment-rather the period during which the appellant was denied the benefits.

12. In that view, the instant judgment is not applicable to the instant facts of the case.

13. There shall be no order as to costs.

14. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

_______________ G. NARENDAR, C.J.

___________________ SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.

Dt: 25^th August, 2025 Rathour PRAVINDR Digitaly signed by PRAVINDRA SINGH RATHOUR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, A SINGH o 2. u 5 = .4 H .2 IG 0= H 2 C 3 O 69 U 9 R c T c c O 2 F f d U 4 T 0 T a A d R 8 A 1 K b H 6f A d N 1 D 33 , 23779d9 e3aeb1097d17dbb53d481cabd25946eed, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, RATHOUR s C e C r 6 ia 1 lN 79 u B m 8 b E0 e 1 r= 0 1 3 F 3 6 1 5 B 4 A 9 6 9 9 E 5 9 2 3 3 1 9 D 1 F 7 7 1 1 F C 9 D 06 A F F D 9 5 2 C A 4 4 5 0 C4E8, cn=PRAVIND