Dr. Dinesh Ch. Sarma vs The State Of Assam And 2 Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 1280 Gua

                                                                     Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010268282017




                            THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                Case No. : WP(C)/7339/2017

            DR. DINESH CH. SARMA
            S/O- LATE KRISHNA KANTA SARMA, R/O- KULBILSATRA, P.O- CHAMAT,
            P.S- BELSOR, DIST- NALBARI, ASSAM



            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM and 2 ORS.
            REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM,
            DEPTT. OF HIGHER EDUCATION, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006

            2:THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION
             KAHILIPARA
             GUWAHATI- 19

            3:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL AandE
            ASSAM
             BELTOLA GUWAHATI- 2
Advocate for the Petitioner : MRS.K KATAKI

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, AG

BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

29.03.2023 Heard Mr. R. Phukan, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. Upamanyu, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Higher Page No.# 2/3

Education Department.

The claim of the petitioner herein is for arrear salary for the period from 01.01.1996 to 31.12.1998. Admittedly, the petitioner had retired on 31.08.2002.

From a perusal of the writ petition, it is seen that the grievance of the petitioner is that similarly situated persons have already received the said arrear salary as far back in the year 2009 itself. There is no explanation in the writ petition as to why the petitioner has approached this Court after 15 years from the date of his retirement for his arrear salary for the period from 01.01.1996 to 31.12.1998. There is also no explanation as to what the petitioner did after retirement except submitting two representations in the year 2009. It is no longer res integra that by submitting representations one after another cannot be a ground to condone the laches on the part of a litigant. Moreso, in the present case, the last of such representation was submitted almost 8 years back before filing the writ petition.

This Court further takes note of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Harendra Chandra Nath & Others vs. the State of Tripura, reported in 2013 (2) GLT 1094 wherein in paragraph No.10, it

was categorically observed that there is no right to recover the arrear salary beyond 3 years from the date of filing of the writ petition.

Taking into account that the claim of the petitioner was for the period from 01.01.1996 to 31.12.1998 and the writ petition was filed in the year 2017, this Court is not inclined to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in the facts of the instant case on account Page No.# 3/3

of delay as well as laches.

It is however observed that this writ petition has been dismissed on the technical ground. The dismissal of the writ petitioner shall not preclude the respondent authorities to consider such representation(s), if any, as deemed fit.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant