Triloki Nath Pandey vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 1750 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 20
 

 
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 23312 of 2020
 

 
Petitioner :- Triloki Nath Pandey
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue,Lko.& Ors.
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shobh Nath Pandey
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.

The petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents to pay salary to the petitioner from 01.08.1984 to 11.07.1985 and other admissible benefits.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has retired from service on 31.12.2007 after attaining the age of superannuation. He has submitted that he made an application/representation on 10.08.2000 for redressal of his grievance regarding non payment of salary from 01.08.1984 to 11.07.1985 and other benefit but no order has been passed till date.

Learned counsel for justifying the delay in filing the writ petition has submitted that the concerned department has made some endorsement on the petitioner's application/representation in the year 2019, therefore, there is no delay.

To support his contention, learned counsel has relied upon a judgment rendered by this Court in Special Appeal Defective No.92 of 2016 (Ravindra Nath Shukla v. State of U.P. & Ors.) dated 15.02.2016.

Per Contra, learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the submissions made by petitioner's counsel and submitted that in the instant petition, claim for payment of salary has been made after 37 years. The petitioner has retired from service in the year 2007. The petitioner has never approached any Court of law for redressal of his grievance. The writ petition is extraordinarily delayed.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

It is admitted fact that that the petitioner had earlier moved a representation before respondent no.3/District Magistrate, Faizabad (Ayodhya) in the year 2000. Thereafter, he waited for almost 20 years for disposal of the said representation. The law on the point is very clear that law assists those that are vigilant with their rights, and not those that sleep thereupon. Law will not assist those who are careless of his/her right. In order to claim one's right, she/he must be watchful of his/her right. Only those persons, who are watchful and careful of using his/her rights, are entitled to the benefits of law. It is now a trite law that where the writ petitioner approaches the High Court after a long delay, reliefs prayed for may be denied to them on the ground of delay and laches.

In view of the above, I do not find any good ground or cogent reason to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

Order Date :- 29.1.2021

nishant/-