Claim For Arrears Of Salary Earlier Than 3 Years Can’t Be Entertained By Courts, Previous Direction To File Representation Doesn’t Revive Stale Claims: Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court has held that the claims for arrears of salary earlier than three years cannot be entertained by the Courts and any previous direction by the Court to file representation will not revive stale claims.
The Bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed, “Therefore, the law is well settled that a claim for arrears of salary for a period earlier than three years, cannot be entertained by the High Court and the Writ Petition filed in the year 2024 for claiming payment of arrears of salary for the period June, 2006 to 30.06.2009 cannot be entertained…Further, the mere fact that the petitioner had filed Writ A No. 227 of 2023 which was disposed off by means of an order dated 15.02.2023, giving the petitioner liberty to file a representation ventilating his grievances, the submission of the representation and rejection thereof will not revive the more than 15 years old stale cause of action of the petitioner.”
Advocate Om Prakash Chaube appeared for the Petitioner whereas Add. CSC Pradipta Kumar Shahi appeared for the Respondents.
A writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution assailing the validity of an order by Respondent no. 5 i.e Deputy Director of Education (Secondary), Jhansi rejecting the Petitioner’s representation for payment of the difference in salary for the post of officiating Principal for June 2006 to June 2009, on the ground that there was no provision of payment of salary of a post held on officiating basis at that point of time.
The petitioner had submitted the representation claiming the difference in salary of the post held by him substantively in 2022 and he had filed the Writ Petition claiming the aforesaid amount in the year 2024.
The Court said that although the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 do not apply to the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is settled law that a person should approach the Court for redressal of his grievances with reasonable promptitude and writ petitions raising stale claims would not be entertained by this Court.
The Court relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the State of Uttaranchal and another Vs. Sri Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari and ors. (2013), which has observed, “It is clear as crystal that even if the court or tribunal directs for consideration of representations relating to a stale claim or dead grievance it does not give rise to a fresh cause of action. The dead cause of action cannot rise like a phoenix. Similarly, a mere submission of representation to the competent authority does not arrest time.”
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground that it suffered from latches i.e. expiry of more than 15 years.
Cause Title: Bhagirath Prasad Sharma v. State of U.P. and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC:111436)
Appearances:
Petitioner: Advocate Om Prakash Chaube
Respondents: Additional Chief Standing Counsel Pradipta Kumar Shahi
