Amin Chand vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others

Ajay Mohan Goel, J

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following relief:-

"i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to release salary/ grant in aid to the present petitioner with effect from 1.10.2008 to 26.6.2009 as the petitioner had remained posted as Physical Education Teacher with the respondents during this period, alongwith penal interest on the total amount at the rate of 18% per annum with all consequential benefits."

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is seeking salary/grant-in-aid with effect from 01.10.2008 to 26.06.2009, which was denied him on account of an inquiry conducted against him, which inquiry was set aside by the Appellate Authority in terms of Annexure P-4, dated 09.06.2009.

Learned Additional Advocate General argued that besides other things, the present petition is hit by delays and laches as the cause of action, if any, accrued in favor of the petitioner on 09.06.2009, whereas, he has approached the Court seeking the relief, as mentioned in the relief clause, in the month of July, 2016.

On a query put to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to how does the petitioner explains the delays and laches, no satisfactory answer could be given.

In fact, a perusal of the petition demonstrates that there is no mention therein as to why the petitioner could not approach the Court within some reasonable time for the relief claimed in this petition as from the date when the Appeal was allowed.

It is settled law that even in service matters, monetary reliefs have to be restricted three years prior to the filing of the writ petition.

Herein, the writ petition was filed on 18.07.2016, meaning thereby, that the pecuniary reliefs which became time-barred three years prior to the filing of the petition, cannot be claimed by the petitioner. What to talk of three years, the petitioner herein has claimed reliefs, which accrued more than six years ago as from the date of filing of the petition after the Appeal of the petitioner was allowed.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that aforesaid grounds is not taken in the reply filed by the State, also does not impress the Court, as the ground of delays and laches can be raised by a party at any stage.

In light of the above observations, as this Court is of the considered view that there is merit in the contention of the learned Additional Advocate General that the present writ petition is hit by delays and laches, the same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.