Suresh Chandra vs Director School Education and others

SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA, J.

K.M. JOSEPH, C.J. (Oral)

The appellant is the writ petitioner. The reliefs sought in the writ petition are as follows :

“i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 26.07.2007, whereby an entry of non-payment of one

day’s salary has been made in petitioner’s Service Book.

ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant the overdue claims of the petitioner’s salary from

the date when the same fell due; and also, pay the arrears amend the seniority list.

iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to calculate and pay the overdue claims of the petitioner’s

salary from the date when the same fell due, as arrears, along with interest thereon.â€​

The learned Single Judge has found that the writ petitioner had approached the Court belatedly by filing writ petition on 27.02.2016, i.e. almost after

nine years as the learned Single Judge found that the impugned order challenged was passed as back as on 26.07.2007. The appellant apparently tried

to set up a case that he is not aware of the order. This contention of the appellant did not appeal to the learned Single Judge, having regard to

Annexure No. 3, which the appellant himself wrote on 30.01.2008, which reflected appellant’s knowledge about the deductions made from the

salary. There is another letter on record as Annexure-5 to the writ petition, which was addressed to Manager/Principal, Block Education Officer and

Joint Director Education by the petitioner, expressing knowledge of deductions made and requesting for payment of the amount withheld.

We heard Shri Davesh Bishnoi, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Vikas Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakahnd, Shri

Sudhir Kumar, Advocate for respondent No. 4 and Shri Alok Mahra, Advocate for respondent No. 5.

The order which is impugned is of the year 2007. The writ petition is filed after nine years in the year 2016.

Regarding the absence of knowledge, we cannot disagree with the learned Single Judge for the reasons assigned therein cannot be faulted. No

doubt, the learned counsel for the appellant would point out that the petitioner came to know about it under Right to Information Act and he would

further submit that he was representing his grievance. It is well settled that mere repeated representation cannot arrest the running of time when the

doctrine of laches is sought to be applied. The appellant has a case that the appellant is being deprived of other financial benefits due to action

impugned in the writ petition. He also submits that the appellant was deprived of another two days’ salary.

While we are not inclined to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge, we only make it clear that in case appellant is deprived of any

other benefits, which is otherwise due to him in law and which does not depend upon the impugned order, we leave it open to the appellant to work out

his remedies before the competent Court.

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.