Allahabad High Court
Laxman Prasad vs High Court Of Judicature At ... on 14 July, 2021
Bench: Munishwar Nath Bhandari, Acting Chief Justice, Ajai Tyagi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 29
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 460 of 2021
Appellant :- Laxman Prasad
Respondent :- High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad And 2 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Ved Prakash Shukla
Counsel for Respondent :- Ashish Mishra
Hon'ble Munishwar Nath Bhandari,Acting Chief Justice
Hon'ble Ajai Tyagi,J.
Civil Misc. Exemption Application No. 1 of 2021
Exemption application is allowed.
The appellant is exempted from filing the certified copy of the judgment dated 17.02.2021 passed by learned Single Judge.
Special Appeal
By this appeal, a challenge is made to the judgment dated 17.02.2021 passed by learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition preferred by the petitioner was dismissed.
The writ petition was filed to claim salary of the post of Driver on promotion in the month of May, 1988 and also 16 months' salary remain unpaid. The document enclosed by the petitioner does not show it to be a case of promotion to the post of Driver but an arrangement showing to be an appointment from amongst the Class-IV employees. The appointment is not in conformity with the rules. In any case, even if that is ignored, there is no pleading as to what pay was made admissible to the petitioner in the year 1988 onwards.
In para 7 of the writ petition, the pay-scale of Rs. 1900 said to have been given to the petitioner alleging the pay-scale of Driver to be much higher. The pleading therein is unspecific and vague. The petitioner has not specified when the pay-scale of Rs. 1900 was given to him and what was the pay-scale of Driver at that time. Para 10 again makes a reference of the pay-scale of Rs. 14530 given to the petitioner alleging it to be of Class-IV employee while the pay-scale of Driver was higher. It is again without specifying the period. The petitioner has failed to give the date of pay-scale of Rs. 14530.
The petition has otherwise been filed with laches as it is not only that the petitioner was knowing about the salary paid to him from time to time but about the order of his appointment on the post of Driver in the year 1988 though not in conformity with the rules. The petitioner preferred the writ petition after his retirement. The vague averments in the writ petition cannot be taken to the benefit of the petitioner-appellant.
Learned counsel for the appellant was, however, given opportunity to refer the documents which may clarify the factual position but he was unable to refer any document other than a letter dated 02.07.2008. Therein, the discrepancy of last pay certificate was found. If the petitioner's wages were not fixed in the year 2008, it is not explained as to why the petitioner could not approach this Court within a reasonable time. The letter dated 23.11.2007 sent by District Judge, Chandauli shows that the petitioner was transferred from Ghazipur to Chandauli on 19.12.2006 and he was relieved from Ghazipur on 02.01.2007. He was no more remained to be employee of the judgeship of Ghazipur. The petitioner failed to join the service under the judgeship of Chandauli rather found absconding from duties. Despite his relieving from district judgeship, Ghazipur, he did not report to District Judge, Chandauli almost for a period of 10 months.
In view of the above, the prayer based on the vague pleading of the writ petition could not have been allowed by learned Single Judge for a petition preferred with laches and even if it is ignored, the petition was required to stand on its leg by making proper pleading.
So far as salary of 16 months is concerned, no detail in regard to it has been given. Thus, we do not find any reason to cause interference in the judgment of learned Single Judge.
The appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 14.7.2021
Shubham
.
(Ajai Tyagi, J.) (Munishwar Nath Bhandari, A.C.J.)
