Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 396 (ALL)

Parshuram v. State of U. P.

2014-02-05

D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, DILIP GUPTA

body2014
JUDGMENT Dilip Gupta, J. The Special Appeal arises from a judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 13 December 2013. The reliefs which the appellant sought in the writ proceedings before the learned Single Judge under Article 226 of the Constitution are as follows: - "(i). To issue a writ order or direction in nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the retiral benefits (gratuity, G.S.L.I. leave encashment and E.P.F.) and outstanding salary for the month of May 2002 to November 2002, bonus for the year 2002-03, D.A. arrear from January 2002 to July 2002, arrears of revised pay scale from 1 January 1996 to 31-07-1998 with 18% interest as per annum, to the petitioner." 2. Hence, the reliefs are in two parts. In the first part, the appellant has sought the payment of his retiral dues including gratuity, G.S.L.I., leave encashment and E.P.F. In the second part, the appellant has sought payment of (i) outstanding salary for the months of May to November 2002; (ii) bonus for the year 2002-03; (iii) arrears of D.A. for January 2002 to July 2002; and (iv) arrears of revised pay scale from 1 January 1996 to 31 July 1998 with interest. 3. In so far as the first part is concerned, the learned Single Judge allowed the appellant the liberty to submit a representation within two weeks of the order and directed the competent authority to pass an appropriate order within two months thereafter. The appellant is not aggrieved by this part of the direction. 4. However, the second part of the relief was declined on the ground that there was a delay which was unexplained. The appellant, as noted above, sought the payment of his salary, bonus and arrears of D.A. for the year 2002. The petition which was filed in 2013 was correctly held to have suffered from unexplained delay and laches. In regard to the claim of revised pay scale for 1996-1998, the delay was also found to be unexplained. 5. At the hearing of the Special Appeal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has relied upon a communication dated 30 December 2008 of the General Manager (Administration/Personnel) of Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. to the Unit Incharge, Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd., Ballia. 5. At the hearing of the Special Appeal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has relied upon a communication dated 30 December 2008 of the General Manager (Administration/Personnel) of Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. to the Unit Incharge, Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd., Ballia. All that the letter does is to refer to the representation submitted by the appellant on 1 December 2008 and states that it should be considered in accordance with law. In fact the letter itself would indicate that the appellant took no steps until 1 December 2008 to pursue his grievance in respect of the alleged non-payment of certain dues of 2002. Even if that date is taken in the reckoning, it is evident that there has been a gross delay on the part of the appellant. In the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court at Lucknow in Dr. Indra Jeet Singh Vs. U.P. Cooperative Dairy Federation & Milk Union Centralised S. (Service Bench No.158 of 2012 decided on 15 April 2013) it is clear that the grievance in that case was in regard to the non-payment of the salary since three years and in certain other units for six months and more. Hence, it is evident that those proceedings were initiated within a reasonable period of time. 6. In the present case there is no cogent reason or justification why the appellant moved the learned Single Judge after a lapse of well over 11 years. Hence, the order of the learned Single Judge declining to entertain the second part of the claim, as noted in the earlier part of this judgment, does not suffer from an error. 7. The Special Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.