Read Time: 05 minutes
The petitioner, who was employed in 1995, had approached the high court in 2014 in another petition claiming certain dues wherein she did not mention the claims that she was making through the present plea at all.
The Allahabad High Court recently dismissed a plea moved by an employee in Bal Vikas Sewa Evam Pustahar, Department of Government of UP seeking payment of parts of her salary from the year 1998 which she claimed remained unpaid.
The petitioner had joined her services in the year 1995 as Mukhya Sevika in the Bal Vikas Sewa Evam Pustahar, Department. In 2014, she moved a plea before the high court claiming certain dues as such salary for certain period, medical leave and benefit of 6th Pay Commission.
However, in that petition, she did not mention the claimes that she were making through her persent petition.
The bench of Dinesh Kumar Singh said, "This Court is amused to find that writ petition after writ petition are being filed for stale/time barred claim(s) and then prayer is confined to direction for deciding a representation. When representation is not decided, a contempt petition is filed. It is nothing but a gross abuse of the process of the Court".
Justice stressed that there is no provision under any statute for deciding a representation in respect of belated claim(s) of a person particularly when he did not make any such claim(s) in earlier writ petition(s).
The judge also underscored that from the material on record in appeared that the administration had been very benevolent towards the petitioner as despite her absence for around two years, the petitioner was retained in service.
Justice Singh held that this subsequent writ petition (present petitioner) was not only barred by the principle of constructive res judicata but also there were gross delays and laches in approaching the high court after 27 years from the date of the alleged cause of action.
"The writ petition ought to be dismissed on the first instance with heavy cost. However, since this Court had entertained the earlier writ petition and directed for deciding the representation, which came to be decided by the impugned order giving all the reasons, and, therefore, the writ petition is also decided on merit," the judge said.
The judge held the claims of the petitioner not only stale and belated but also barred by principal of constructive res judicata.
"...this Court cannot entertain a writ petition for money claim after 27 years from the alleged cause of action allegedly arose in her favour," the judge said while dismissing the plea.
Case Title: Urmila Devi Pal v. State of UP and 2 Others
Please Login or Register
