JUDGMENT : ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J. 1. Learned counsel for the parties are present. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: “For issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to revise pension of petitioner and other retiral benefits treating petitioner to be notionally appointed in the year 1998 in pursuance of recommendation of the District Compassionate Committee in its meeting dated 08.08.1998 and extending consequential benefits thereon and further treating the period from 09.09.1998 to 30.09.2001 as period for continuity in service for calculating pensionary benefits and other retiral benefits AND It is further prayed for direction upon respondents to release the arrear of difference of retiral benefits and pension of petitioner, along with statutory as well as penal interest, in pursuance the revision of pension and other retiral benefits of petitioner as prayed hereinabove.” Arguments of the Petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground by virtue of the meeting of District Compassionate Committee on 08.08.1998, but the appointment letter was belatedly issued on 17.08.2001. She submits that the petitioner joined on 01.10.2001 and attained the age of superannuation on 31.12.2021. 4. The learned counsel further submits that as per Annexure- 2 to the writ petition, it is clear that few persons namely Anil Pandey and others were granted compassionate appointment prior to the petitioner pursuant to the District Compassionate Committee meeting held subsequently on 23.11.1998 and 24.11.1998 and the issuance of appointment letter to the petitioner was kept pending. She submits that therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the relief as prayed for in this writ petition. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the delay on the part of the petitioner will not come in the way in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Union of India and others Vs. Tarsem Singh” reported in (2008) 8 SCC 648 . She has referred to paragraph 7 of the said judgment. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further referred to paragraph 8 of the writ petition. Arguments of the respondents. 7. Tarsem Singh” reported in (2008) 8 SCC 648 . She has referred to paragraph 7 of the said judgment. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further referred to paragraph 8 of the writ petition. Arguments of the respondents. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that as per the counter-affidavit there was certain query in connection with the father’s name of the petitioner and the petitioner had filed a writ petition being CWJC No. 2350 of 2000(R) and such plea was taken by the respondents in the said writ proceedings also. He submits that considering the facts of the said case, an order dated 05.07.2001 was passed directing the respondents to issue appointment letter to the petitioner on the basis of the decision taken by the District Establishment Committee and immediately thereafter, the appointment letter was issued. 8. He has submitted that the petitioner accepted the appointment letter without any protest way back in the year 2001 and had joined and after attaining the age of superannuation in the year 2021, now the petitioner wants that initial date of his appointment should be shifted to the date on which the establishment committee had recommended the name of the petitioner. He submits that the claim of the petitioner suffers from delay and laches and the appointment was given pursuant to direction issued by this Court in CWJC No. 2350 of 2000(R). Rejoinder arguments of the petitioner. 9. To this, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the required enquiry in connection with the name of the father of the petitioner was undertaken prior to the date of recommendation by the establishment committee. She has relied upon a judgment passed by Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 527 of 2012 (State of Jharkhand Vs. Sulochana Kumari and others) decided on 14th July 2014 (Annexure- 12 series) and also order passed in W.P.(S) No. 6702 of 2019 in the case of “Ramawtar Singh and others Vs. The State of Jharkhand and others” decided on 19th June 2020. In the writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 6702 of 2019, there was a direction to pass a reasoned order and pursuant thereto, a reasoned order has been passed and annexed as Annexure- 13 to the writ petition. The State of Jharkhand and others” decided on 19th June 2020. In the writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 6702 of 2019, there was a direction to pass a reasoned order and pursuant thereto, a reasoned order has been passed and annexed as Annexure- 13 to the writ petition. She submits that appropriate order in terms of the order in W.P.(S) No. 6702 of 2019 be passed so that grievance of the petitioner is considered by the respondents with regard to initial date of appointment. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the relief as prayed for by the petitioner will have a bearing on the post-retirement benefits of the petitioner and therefore, the claim of the petitioner cannot be said to be barred by any delay or laches. Findings of this Court. 11. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the materials placed on record by both the parties the foundational facts are not in dispute. 12. On 23.11.1996 the father of the petitioner died in harness while in service and the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment. As per the educational qualification certificates of the petitioner the name of his father appeared as 'Rajeshwar Prasad Gupta' but the name of ex-employee was 'Rajkeshwar'. It has been specifically mentioned in writ petition at paragraph 11 and not denied in the counter affidavit that there was an objection with regards to mis-match between the father’s name of the petitioner as mentioned in his educational qualification certificates and the name of deceased employee in the service book and therefore an enquiry was conducted and it was found that person named in the service book and person named as father in the educational certificates of the petitioner was one and the same person. The said enquiry report is dated 03.07.1998. The communication of the enquiry conducted by the concerned circle officer and addressed to the Establishment Deputy Collector, Ranchi reveals that pursuant to letter No. 519 II dated 23.05.1998 the required enquiry was conducted and it was reported that ex-employee and the person named in the educational certificates of the petitioner were one and the same person. The communication of the enquiry conducted by the concerned circle officer and addressed to the Establishment Deputy Collector, Ranchi reveals that pursuant to letter No. 519 II dated 23.05.1998 the required enquiry was conducted and it was reported that ex-employee and the person named in the educational certificates of the petitioner were one and the same person. After being satisfied, the District Establishment Compassionate Committee in its meeting held on 08.08.1998 recommended for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground and a letter contained in Memo No. 1122(ii) dated 02.09.1998 was issued directing the respondent No. 5 to issue appointment letter to the petitioner within a week and report. 13. It is further not in dispute that in spite of recommendation made by the District Establishment Compassionate Committee dated 02.09.1998, the appointment letter was not issued to the petitioner and a letter No. 117 (ii) dated 16.01.1999 (Annexure-3) was issued by the respondent no. 4 to the respondent no. 5 to immediately appoint the petitioner which was followed by another letter No. 111 dated 25.02.1999 (Annexure-4) issued by respondent No. 6 directing the respondent No. 5 to immediately appoint the petitioner so as to ensure that the petitioner does not suffer any financial loss or dissatisfaction and a direction was also issued to pay death-cum-retiral dues of the deceased father of the petitioner. When the respondent No. 5 did not issue appointment letter to the petitioner in spite of repeated communications, the petitioner filed a representation dated 21.05.1999 to the Chief Secretary of the then State of Bihar but objection was again raised with respect to the father’s name of the petitioner. Consequently, the respondent no. 4 issued letter No. 436(ii) dated 24.06.1999 (Annexure-5 series) and clarified the position that the ex-employee was the father of the petitioner by referring to the aforesaid enquiry conducted by the concerned Circle Officer and directed the respondent no. 5 to act accordingly. 14. Still the appointment letter was not issued to the petitioner and therefore the petitioner filed representation dated 06.07.2000 (Annexure-7) and ultimately filed writ petition being CWJC No. 2350 of 2000(R) raising a grievance that in spite of decision taken by the District Establishment Compassionate Committee, the respondent no.5 was not issuing appointment letter to the petitioner. In the said writ petition, a counter affidavit was filed by the respondent no. In the said writ petition, a counter affidavit was filed by the respondent no. 5 stating, inter alia, the objection regarding father’s name of the petitioner and in rejoinder it was placed that the Deputy Commissioner had enquired into the matter and confirmed to the respondent no.5 that the father's name appearing in the certificate and the name appearing in the service record was that of one and the same person. In the said background the following observations and directions were made :- "…After going through the reply to the counter-affidavit, J.C. to G.P. 2 very fairly submitted that in view of confirmation made by the Deputy Commissioner, there is no reason why the Regional Deputy Director of Education will not issue letter of appointment of the basis of decision taken by the District Establishment Committee. This writ application is therefore allowed and the concerned respondent is directed to issue letter of appointment on the basis of decision taken by the District Establishment Committee presided by the Deputy Commissioner. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Ranchi shall comply the order within four weeks from today." 15. In the said writ petition as soon as it was brought on record that the Deputy Commissioner had enquired into the matter and confirmed that the father’s name appearing in the service record as also in the certificate of the petitioner was of one and the same person and on a submission by the learned counsel for the state who had fairly submitted that in view of the confirmation made by the Deputy Commissioner, there was no reason why the Regional Deputy Director of Education would not issue letter of appointment on the basis of decision taken by the District Establishment Committee, the writ petition was allowed vide order dated 05.07.2001 and a direction was issued by the learned writ Court to issue letter of appointment to the petitioner on the basis of decision taken by the District Establishment Compassionate Committee within four weeks. 16. Immediately thereafter the respondent no.5 issued the letter of appointment dated 17.08.2001 (Annexure-9) clearly mentioning that the petitioner would be appointed from the date of joining and pursuant thereto the petitioner duly joined the service on 01.10.2001 and ultimately retired on 31.12.2021 after completing more than 20 years of service. 17. 16. Immediately thereafter the respondent no.5 issued the letter of appointment dated 17.08.2001 (Annexure-9) clearly mentioning that the petitioner would be appointed from the date of joining and pursuant thereto the petitioner duly joined the service on 01.10.2001 and ultimately retired on 31.12.2021 after completing more than 20 years of service. 17. As stated in paragraph 18 of the writ petition, the petitioner was paid the retiral dues but the petitioner became aggrieved for the first time with regards to his initial date of appointment and raised his grievance vide representation dated 25.07.2022. The specific case of the petitioner is that the petitioner ought to have been notionally appointed from one week after 02.09.1998 when the recommendation for appointment of the petitioner was made by the District Establishment Compassionate Committee and not from 01.10.2001 (the date of joining) and he sought revision of pension and other service benefits. It is the grievance of the petitioner that adequate retiral benefits have not been paid to the petitioner on account of delay caused by the respondents. 18. This Court finds that the petitioner did not raise any grievance with regard to his initial date of appointment and as per the appointment letter dated 17.08.2001 itself the petitioner was to be appointed from the date of joining and not from any anterior date; the petitioner joined on 01.10.2001 pursuant to the aforesaid letter of appointment dated 17.08.2001 and his joining letter reveals that he had specifically stated that his joining be accepted with effect from 01.10.2001 and he reserved his right with respect to his joining. Thereafter the petitioner did not raise any grievance and continued in service without any objection with regard to his date of joining or any service benefits and after having attained the age of superannuation on 31.12.2021 upon completion of more than 20 years of service, the petitioner accepted the post retiral benefits and then filed a representation on 25.07.2022 claiming to shift his initial date of appointment immediately after one week from issuance of letter dated 02.09.1998 by virtue of the decision of District Establishment Compassionate Committee irrespective of his initial date of joining (01.10.2001) and grant consequential service benefits, revision of salary and revision of pension. 19. 19. This Court finds that there was complete silence on the part of the petitioner for more than 20 long years while he remained in service and the writ petition also does not disclose about raising of any grievance by the petitioner with respect to his initial date of appointment and no such reason is available on record to suggest the reasons for such silence from the side of the petitioner. Rather the records reveal that the petitioner had accepted the letter of appointment, joined the service and continued in service for more than 20 years and after retirement and having accepted the pension has raised the dispute with regards to his initial date of appointment and in order to sustain such belated claim, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon paragraph 7 of the judgement passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Union of India and others Vs. Tarsem Singh” reported in (2008) 8 SCC 648 . 20. Thus, the point for consideration is as to whether grievance with regards to initial date of appointment and the claim that the initial date of appointment should be shifted to one week after 02.09.1998 (the date of recommendation of the District Establishment Compassionate Committee) instead of actual date of joining from 01.10.2001 arises out of any continuing wrong to the petitioner so as to overcome the rigors of stale/delayed claim as argued by the respondents. 21. There is no dispute that as per the normal rule the period of service commences only from the date the employee joins on the substantive post. This Court is of the considered view that no such case for taking any exception to this general rule has been made out by the petitioner as was made out by the writ petitioners in LPA No. 527 of 2012 (State of Jharkhand Vs. Sulochana Kumari and others) decided on 14th July 2014. The said judgment relied upon by the petitioner was on a different set of facts, inasmuch as, in the said case the writ petitioners were appointed pursuant to advertisement published in the news-paper and they were also empanelled, but appointment letters were not issued. Sulochana Kumari and others) decided on 14th July 2014. The said judgment relied upon by the petitioner was on a different set of facts, inasmuch as, in the said case the writ petitioners were appointed pursuant to advertisement published in the news-paper and they were also empanelled, but appointment letters were not issued. Ultimately, it was found that the delay in issuance of appointment letter was on account of mistake of the State and had the mistake been not committed, the writ petitioners would have joined their post in the year 1991 along with their batchmates, but could join only when appointment letters were issued on 08.05.1999 rectifying the mistake and consequently on account of mistake of the State their seniority was also affected. In such circumstances, the Hon’ble Division Bench was of the view that the general rule that the date of seniority could reckon only from the date when the incumbent joins the substantive post was not applicable and it was also observed that if the writ petitioners were given notional appointment from an anterior date, the same would not have made much difference in the seniority list and ultimately, this Court passed an order for notionally treating the writ petitioners to have been appointed in the year 1991 pursuant to the advertisement of the year 1988 placing the writ petitioners as junior most in the batch of teachers appointed pursuant to the same advertisement with an observation that they shall not be entitled to actual monetary benefit for the period from 1991 till 1999 as their actual date of appointment was of the year 1999. This Court finds that in the present case the appointment of the petitioner was on compassionate ground and admittedly there was mismatch in connection with the name of the father of the petitioner which was found to be different upon comparison between the name of ex-employee in the service record and father's name of the petitioner in his educational certificates. Though the Compassionate Committee had conducted the required enquiry prior to recommending name of the petitioner for issuance of appointment letter, but the objection by the respondent no. 5 regarding the father’s name of the petitioner stood settled when the order dated 05.07.2001 was passed in CWJC No. 2350 of 2000(R). In the writ proceedings also the respondent no. Though the Compassionate Committee had conducted the required enquiry prior to recommending name of the petitioner for issuance of appointment letter, but the objection by the respondent no. 5 regarding the father’s name of the petitioner stood settled when the order dated 05.07.2001 was passed in CWJC No. 2350 of 2000(R). In the writ proceedings also the respondent no. 5 was raising objection in connection with the name of the father of the petitioner and ultimately, this Court decided that once the Deputy Commissioner enquired into the matter and confirmed the father’s name of the petitioner, there was no reason why the respondent no. 5 would not issue the appointment letter on the basis of decision taken by the District Establishment Committee. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed directing the respondents to issue the letter of appointment and immediately thereafter, the letter of appointment dated 17.08.2001 was issued. In the present case, it cannot be said that the appointment letter was not being issued by the respondents on account of their mistake rather there was a genuine confusion with regard to the father’s name of the petitioner which was different in the educational certificate of the petitioner as compared to the name of the ex-employee as recorded in the service record. 22. In the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Union of India and others Vs. Tarsem Singh” reported in (2008) 8 SCC 648 (supra)), it has been held that normally a belated service related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches (where remedy is sought by filing a writ petition) or limitation (where remedy is sought by an application to the Administrative Tribunal) and one such exception is in cases of continuing wrong. Even if it is assumed that there was some laches on the part of the respondents in not issuing the appointment letter immediately pursuant to letter of recommendation by the District Establishment Compassionate Committee dated 02.09.1998, the claim of the petitioner is a belated /stale claim without any explanation for delay and is not a continuing wrong on the part of the respondents. In the present case, the petitioner having joined the service way back in the year 2001 pursuant to an order passed by this Court in writ petition, any delay in issuing the appointment letter for whatsoever reason cannot be said to be a continuing wrong to the petitioner seeking appointment on compassionate ground. Such claim regarding fixing of anterior date of appointment much prior to the actual date of issuance of appointment letter and actual date of joining cannot be said to be a case of continuing wrong and therefore, the judgment relied upon by the petitioner in the case of Union of India and others Vs. Tarsem Singh (Supra) does not apply to the facts of this case. Paragraph 7 of the judgment in Union of India and others Vs. Tarsem Singh (Supra) is quoted as under: "7. To summarise, normally, a belated service related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches (where remedy is sought by filing a writ petition) or limitation (where remedy is sought by an application to the Administrative Tribunal). One of the exceptions to the said rule is cases relating to a continuing wrong. Where a service related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy, with reference to the date on which the continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong creates a continuing source of injury. But there is an exception to the exception. If the grievance is in respect of any order or administrative decision which related to or affected several others also, and if the reopening of the issue would affect the settled rights of third parties, then the claim will not be entertained. For example, if the issue relates to payment or refixation of pay or pension, relief may be granted in spite of delay as it does not affect the rights of third parties. But if the claim involved issues relating to seniority or promotion, etc., affecting others, delay would render the claim stale and doctrine of laches/limitation will be applied. Insofar as the consequential relief of recovery of arrears for a past period is concerned, the principles relating to recurring/successive wrongs will apply. But if the claim involved issues relating to seniority or promotion, etc., affecting others, delay would render the claim stale and doctrine of laches/limitation will be applied. Insofar as the consequential relief of recovery of arrears for a past period is concerned, the principles relating to recurring/successive wrongs will apply. As a consequence, the High Courts will restrict the consequential relief relating to arrears normally to a period of three years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition." 23. This Court finds that the joining of the petitioner was accepted from 01.10.2001 and the petitioner did not raise any grievance thereafter during his service period and even till he started receiving his post retiral benefits in the year 2021. The claim of the petitioner with regards to shifting his initial date of appointment is a stale claim and the petitioner has no explanation as to why he did not raise his grievance, if any, for more than 20 years during his entire service period. The argument of the petitioner that the wrong was a continuing wrong and hence delay cannot be a ground to deny the relief to the petitioner, is devoid of any merits, hence rejected. This Court holds that the claim of the petitioner suffers from unexplained delay and laches and the wrong, if any, cannot be said to continuing wrong, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 24. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief as prayed for by the petitioner in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. 25. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.