Aruna Sharma vs State Of Punjab And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 1898 P&H

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                      AT CHANDIGARH
220
                                LPA-1000-2018 (O&M)
                                Date of Decision: March 22, 2022

Aruna Sharma

                                                              ....Appellant
                                 VERSUS

State of Punjab & others                                   ....Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G. S. SANDHAWALIA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI

Present:- Mr.S.K.Rattan, Advocate, for the appellant.

Mr.S.P.S.Tinna, Addl.A.G., Punjab.

(The proceedings are being conducted through video conferencing, as per instructions.)

G.S. SANDHAWALIA, J. (Oral) :

Present letters patent appeal is directed against the order

dated 05.12.2017 passed by the Learned Single Judge in CWP-19473-

2016 whereby the benefit of interest on the delayed payment of arrears of

proficiency step-up has been denied to the appellant-writ petitioner.

Counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment of the

Full Bench in A.S.Randhawa, Supdg. Engineer (Retd.) Vs. State of

Punjab, 1998 (1) SCT 343, to submit that on account of delay the

petitioner is entitled for the benefit of interest and the Learned Single

Judge was not correct in denying the said benefit. It is submitted that

reference to Section 34(2) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was made with

the earlier direction to decide the representation which did not mention

the payment of interest and therefore, interest is deemed to have been

declined. It is contended that the provisions of CPC would not be strictly

1 of 4

LPA-1000-2018 (O&M) -2-

applicable to the proceedings in the Writ Court, while placing reliance

upon A.S.Randhawa (supra). It is further contended that the payment was

made only in the year 2016 after directions had been issued by this Court

and thus the appellant was entitled for the benefit of interest.

In the considered opinion of this Court, the claim of interest

on delayed payment at the cost of the State is totally unjustifiable.

Admittedly, the appellant retired on 31.01.2003 and after a period of 2

years, legal notice came to served on 12.02.2005 (Annexure A-2) to the

respondents claiming the said benefits. Thereafter, CWP-8289-2015 was

filed, seeking the benefit of directions passed in CWP-6135-2003 titled

Varinder Pal Vs. State of Punjab & others, decided on 05.07.2005 after a

period of 12 years, which has now been placed on record as Annexure

A-1. The directions were thus issued to decide the legal notice within a

period of four months, as per order dated 30.04.2015.

A perusal of the judgment passed in Varinder Pal (supra)

would show that CWP-6135-2003 was filed in the year 2003 and

directions had been issued on 05.07.2005 whereby the benefits of

proficiency step-up after completion of 24/32 years of service under the

Assured Career Progression Scheme with all consequential benefits had

been granted and to refund the recovered amount of Rs.21,110/-, had

been directed. Thus, it would be apparent that the petitioner in that case

was well aware of his rights and approached the Court immediately after

his retirement on 31.03.2000, within a period of 3 years.

                                 2 of 4

 LPA-1000-2018 (O&M)                                                       -3-

In the present case, the petitioner who is a fence sitter and

who has slept over his rights served the legal notice after a period of 2

years. Then only directions had been issued and the amount was

disbursed in the year 2016, in compliance of the orders of the Learned

Single Judge. The benefit of interest as claimed by the appellant who

slept over his rights, had been totally indolent, is untenable.

It has been time and again held by the Apex Court that filing

of representations would not revive the cause of action. Reliance in this

regard can be placed upon C.Jacob Vs. Director of Geology & Min.

Indus. Est. and another 2008 (10) SCC 115 and State of Uttaranchal

& another Vs. Sri Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari & others 2013 (12)

SCC 179. Resultantly, law is settled that dead issues cannot be allowed

to be raked up time and again. It is to be noticed that the benefits though

have been granted on directions issued in the earlier litigation filed by the

writ petitioner but on account of his conduct, the claim for interest from

the time the appellant retired in 2003 was not made but the litigation was

thereafter initiated in 2015 and merely seeking the benefits granted to

similarly situated person would not entitle him for the said claim.

The judgment in A.S.Randhawa (supra) pertain to the retiral

dues which have been denied by the State for no reason and thus would

not be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case since

the benefits sought were of proficiency step-up claim of which had not

been made at the time of service or immediately after retirement. Thus,

for reasons separate than what the Learned Single Judge had opined upon

3 of 4

LPA-1000-2018 (O&M) -4-

and rejected the claim, this Court is of the considered view that the

present round of litigation for the said claim is not justified in any

manner.

Accordingly, in view of the above discussion, finding no

merit in the present appeal, the same is hereby dismissed.

(G. S. SANDHAWALIA) JUDGE

(VIKAS SURI) JUDGE

March 22, 2022 sailesh

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

4 of 4