Mohan Lal Sharma vs UT of J&K and others

Rajnesh Oswal, J

Appellant was initially appointed in the Directorate of Tourism in terms of Order dated 4th May 1968 and thereafter with the establishment of J&K Tourism Development Corporation (for short "JKTDC"), appellant along with other employees was shifted to JKTDC, where he continued to render his services. Appellant was promoted in JKTDC from 'Assistant Barman' to 'Barman' by Divisional Manager vide order dated 14th November 1970.

Appellant, after securing various promotions, retired as Deputy Manager on 30th November 2002. In the year 2018, i.e., after sixteen years of his attaining superannuation, he submitted a representation to respondents seeking extension of pension and other retiral benefits.

Thereafter, the appellant filed a writ petition, bearing SWP no.2261/2018, which came to be disposed of vide order dated 3rd November 2018, whereby respondents were directed to consider the claim of appellant as projected in writ petition for release of pensionary and other retiral benefits in accordance with rules. As the order was not complied with by respondents, appellant filed a contempt petition bearing CCP(S) no.640/2019, which was disposed of by learned Single Judge vide order dated 14th September 2022.

The appellant then filed Writ Petition WP(C) No. 460/2023 to challenge the July 15, 2019, order rejecting his claim for grant of pensionary benefits. He further requested that the respondents to recognize his status as a government employee and grant him pensionary benefits consistent with those provided to similarly situated individuals. employees of JKI Limited and to extend benefits of judgement dated 12th March 2009 passed in SWP no.1250/2002 titled as "J&K Industries Employees Association v. State of J&K and others" read with judgement dated 31st July 2016 titled as "All J&K State Forest Corporation Employees v. State of J&K and others".

The learned Writ Court in terms of judgement dated 9th October 2025 dismissed the writ petition by holding that no justification for delay in approaching the Court has been demonstrated in the writ petition.

Appellant, being aggrieved of judgement dated 9th October 2025, has come with this intra court appeal, thereby assailing it on the ground that the claim of appellant for grant of pensionary benefits was "recurring and continuous cause", as such, writ petition of appellant could not have been dismissed on the ground of 'delay and laches'. The appellant urges that despite his deputation to the JKTDC, he remained an employee of the Tourism Department. On this basis, the impugned judgment is erroneous and ought to be set aside.

Heard learned counsel appearing for parties and perused the record.

It is an admitted fact that the appellant, along with other employees, was transferred to JKTDC. While there, he was promoted from 'Assistant Barman' to 'Barman,' and subsequently earned several promotions before retiring as a Deputy Manager in November 2002. For sixteen years following his retirement, the appellant raised no claim for grant of pensionary benefits as government employee; instead, he accepted his career progression and eventual retirement within JKTDC. Furthermore, prior to filing the writ petitions, the appellant had already received all retiral benefits due to him as employee of JKTDC, as detailed in the order dated July 15, 2019. That order was issued pursuant to the directions of the Writ Court in SWP No. 2261/2018, and was later challenged by the appellant in WP(C) No. 460/2023.

Learned Writ Court while rejecting the claim of appellant has held that petition suffers from 'delay and laches' and while returning the said finding has relied upon the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India: -

a) Karnataka Power Corpon. Ltd. v. K. Thangappan, (2006) 4 SCC 322;

b) M.P.Ram Mohan Raja v. State of T.N., (2007) 9 SCC 78;

c) Shiv Dass v. Union of India, (2007) 9 SCC 274;

d) Nadia Distt. Primary School Council v. Sristidhar Biswar, (2007) 12 SCC 779;

e) U.P. Jal Nigam v. Jaswant Singh, (2006) 11 SCC 464;

f) Jagdish Lal v. State of Haryana, (1997) 6 SCC 538;

g) NDMC v. Pan Singh, (2007) 9 SCC 278;

h) State of Orissa v. Pyarimohan Amantaray, (1977) 3 SCC 396;

i) P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of T.N., (1975) 1 SCC 152;

j) Administrator of Union Territory of Daman and Diu and others v. R. D. Valand, 1995 Supp (4) 593;

k) State of Uttaranchal v. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari, (2013) 12 SCC 179;

l) C. Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining, (2008) 10 SCC 115;

m) Union of India v. M. K. Sarkar, (2010) 2 SCC 59;

n) State of T.N. v. Seshachalam, (2007) 10 SCC 137;

o) Union of India and others v. Chaman Rana, (2018) 5 SCC 798;

p) Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board and others v.

T. T. Murali Babu, (2014) 4 SCC 108;

q) State of West Bengal v. Debabrata Tiwari and others, 2023 SCC Online SC 219.

It is settled law that the mere act of filing representations cannot resuscitate a stale claim. Having slept over his rights for nearly two decades, the appellant is precluded from claiming the status of a government employee, especially since he accepted multiple promotions within JKTDC and opted to receive his retiral benefits from that corporation.

The appellant's contention that he remained an employee of the Tourism Department while on deputation to JKTDC is misconceived. Having secured successive promotions, rising from 'Assistant Barman' to 'Barman' and ultimately retiring as 'Deputy Manager' within JKTDC, the appellant, through his conduct, has acquiesced to his status as a JKTDC employee. Having enjoyed the career benefits associated with the corporation, he is now precluded from asserting that he remained an employee of the Tourism Department. In this context, it is worthwhile to take note of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme court of India in P.S. Gopinathan v. State of Kerala and others reported in AIR 2008 SC 2768. The relevant para thereof in this regard is advantageous to be reproduced hereunder:

"The act and action of the appellant in accepting his appointment as temporary one amounts to his assent to the temporary appointment and the appellant throughout till he raised an objection on 29.10.1992 has slept on his right of being appointed permanently on the post of District & Sessions Judge. By his conduct at the time of the issuance of the order by the High Court on 29.2.1992 and thereafter issuance of the second appointment order on 15.7.1992 with full knowledge of his own right and the act of the High Court which infringes it, led the High Court to believe that he has waived or abandoned his right. Lord Campbel in Cairncross v. Lorrimer, 3 LT 130 held that "generally speaking if a party having an interest to prevent an act being done had full notice of its being done, and acquiesce it, so as to induce a reasonable belief that he consents to it and the position of the others is altered by their giving credit to his sincerity, he has no more right to challenge the act to their prejudice than he would have had if it had been done by his previous license."

(emphasis added)

Upon a close review of the impugned judgment, we find no error that justifies interference. This is especially true given the significant delay and the fact that the appellant has already accepted and utilized all retiral benefits provided to him in his capacity as a JKTDC employee. The appeal is devoid of any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.