Raghabendra Choudhary Vs. State of Bihar and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
service laws - salary--claim of--arrears of salary--time bound promotion--petitioner claimed arrear of salary after ten years--held, writ application filed liable to be dismissed on account of delay and laches. - narayan roy, j. 1. heard counsel for the parties. 2. the petitioner by this writ application seeks direction upon the respondents to pay arrears of difference of salary from september 1985 to february 1999 on account of enhancement of the pay scale of the petitioner. 3. on own showing of the petitioner, it appears that the pay scale of the petitioner was enhanced on 22-9-1993 as first time bound promotion was granted to him. this writ application is, however, being filed after ten years for grant of the reliefs sought for in this writ application. this writ application is, therefore, liable to be dismissed on account of delay and laches. 4. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed several representations, as contained in annexures 7 series and 8 series. 5. it appears that the representation was filed by the petitioner in the year 1999 after lapse of six years. 6. considering the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, i do not find any merit in this application. 7. it is accordingly, dismissed. 8. the petitioner, if so advised, may pursue the matter departmentally.

Judgment:

Narayan Roy, J.

1. Heard Counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner by this writ application seeks direction upon the respondents to pay arrears of difference of salary from September 1985 to February 1999 on account of enhancement of the pay scale of the petitioner.

3. On own showing of the petitioner, it appears that the pay scale of the petitioner was enhanced on 22-9-1993 as first time bound promotion was granted to him. This writ application is, however, being filed after ten years for grant of the reliefs sought for in this writ application. This writ application is, therefore, liable to be dismissed on account of delay and laches.

4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed several representations, as contained in Annexures 7 series and 8 series.

5. It appears that the representation was filed by the petitioner in the year 1999 after lapse of six years.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, I do not find any merit in this application.

7. It is accordingly, dismissed.

8. The petitioner, if so advised, may pursue the matter departmentally.