Uttarakhand High Court
WPSB/434/2023 on 10 October, 2023
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
SL. proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
WPSB No. 434 of 2023
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Mr. Ashish Joshi, learned counsel assisted
by Mr. Shobhit Joshi, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
2. Mr. S.S. Chaudhary, learned Brief Holder
for the State of Uttarakhand.
3. Petitioner was appointed as teacher in a
government-aided intermediate college at
Chamkotkhal, Yamkeshwar, District Pauri
Garhwal. He retired from service on 30.06.2007.
4. According to petitioner, he discharged
duties as In-charge Principal between 01.07.2006
to 30.06.2007, however no additional monetary
benefits were paid to him.
5. In this writ petition, petitioner has staked
claim for monetary benefits in lieu of services
rendered by him as In-charge Principal.
6. Learned State Counsel submits that the writ
petition is hopelessly time barred, as more than
16 years have been gone by, since the date of
petitioner's retirement. He submits that there is
no explanation whatsoever for such an inordinate
delay, therefore, petitioner is not entitled to any
relief as claimed in this writ petition.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends
that petitioner has been making representation to
authorities from time to time, but, no decision
has been taken on such representation. Thus,
according to him, petitioner cannot be blamed
for the delay in filing writ petition.
8. Learned State Counsel, however, points out
that representations, which are enclosed with the
writ petition, were filed after 2021 and there is
nothing on record to show that petitioner
submitted any representation earlier.
9. Learned State Counsel relies upon
judgment rendered by Full Bench of this Court in
the case of Kanti Prasad Dadpuri & others Vs.
State of Uttarakhand, reported in 2012 1 U.D.
589.
10. Learned State Counsel, however, submits
that petitioner is a fence sitter, who kept waiting
all this while and he has filed this writ petition
after more than 16 years of retirement. Thus, he
submits that the writ petition is liable to be
dismissed for delay and laches.
11. This Court finds substance in the
submission made by learned State Counsel. A
person, seeking relief from a judicial forum, has
to approach such forum within the period of
limitation or when no limitation period is
prescribed, then within a reasonable time.
Although, in writ proceedings, there is no
limitation period prescribed, however, one has to
approach a Writ Court within a reasonable
period of time and, if there is any delay/laches,
then a reasonable reason for such delay/laches
has to be given by the petitioner. The explanation
offered by petitioner is that he repeatedly filed
representations and he was waiting for the
authorities to act on his representation. This
cannot be a valid explanation for the delay and
laches. If the authorities have failed to act on
petitioner's representation, then it was incumbent
upon the petitioner to approach a judicial forum
for redressal of his grievance, within a
reasonable time.
12. Petitioner has filed this writ petition for
releasing his monetary dues for the service he
rendered as In-Charge Principal between
01.07.2006 to 30.06.2007. The relief sought in
the writ petition can also be claimed by filing a
Money Recovery Suit, for which limitation is 3
years. It is not a case where petitioner has
claimed pension or post retirement dues. The
monetary dues claimed by petitioner are in
respect of services, which he allegedly rendered
on a higher post. Had it been a case of pension,
then perhaps petitioner could have argued that it
gives rise to recurring cause of action. Since
petitioner is not claiming pension, therefore, we
do not find any reason to interfere with the writ
petition at this belated stage.
13. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is
dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
10.10.2023
PN
