Jai Kishan Sharma vs State Of Haryana And Others

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Jai Kishan Sharma vs State Of Haryana And Others on 7 May, 2024

CWP-9182-2024 1
2024: PHHC:062876

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

Sr. No.120 CWP-9182-2024
Date of Decision: 07.05.2024

Jai Kishan Sharma .... Petitioner
Versus

State of Haryana and others ... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHITYA

Present: Mr. Suresh Kumar Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner.
3 2k 3

TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. (ORAL)

This petition has been filed inter alia seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to protect the petitioner's pay by considering his previous service rendered in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan/fourth respondent, and re-fix his pension by releasing all consequential benefits.

2. As per facts apparent on record, the petitioner worked with the fourth respondent as TGT Sanskrit from 17.08.1984 to 11.12.2002. Thereafter, he joined the respondent Education Department as Headmaster on 17.12.2002, and was later promoted as Principal with effect from 09.01.2009. After superannuation from service on 31.03.2012, due pensionary benefits were released to him.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Saroj Kumari v. State of Punjab, 1998(3) S.C.T. 664, to contend that the petition is maintainable even after a delay of more than twenty-one years as the claim is for protection of pay by considering the petitioner's previous service which is a recurring cause of action.

CWP-9182-2024 2 2024: PHHC:062876

4. Heard.

5. The cause of action, if any, to seek protection of pay arose to the petitioner when he joined the Department as Headmaster on 17.12.2002. He, however, chose to approach this Court in 2024, that too after accepting promotion to the post of Principal and superannuating from service on 31.03.2012. No ground is made out to entertain the petition which has been filed after inordinate delay of more than twenty-one years without any justification. The plea that protection of pay is a recurring cause of action is too far fetched to be accepted. Since the petitioner was never concerned about his claim for over two decades while he remained in service and earned promotions, he cannot be permitted to raise the same at this stage merely because he has risen from slumber now. By remaining dormant for so long, he acquiesced to abandoning the claim altogether. Once he himself has chosen to give a burial to his rights, the same are proclaimed dead and cannot be revived. The petitioner's wish to agitate the same in the guise of recurring cause of action will not infuse life in it, the attempt is ex facie mala fide, and accordingly stands rejected. Further, the reliance on Saroj Kumari case (supra) by the learned counsel is also misplaced, since it pertains to pay fixation claim of an employee who was in service, whereas the petitioner superannuated from service long back.

6. Accordingly, there is no ground to entertain the petition, and it stands dismissed.

(TRIBHUVAN DAHTYA) JUDGE 07.05.2024 Maninder Whether speaking/reasoned__:: Yes/No MANINDER 2024.05.10 17:20 .

I attest to the accuracy and Whether reportable . Yes/ No authenticity of this order/judgment.