KISHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved against an order passed on 1.7.2010. The prayer made in the writ petition is for release of annual increments, which were due to him in the years 1993 to 1995. Apart from claiming the increments, the petitioner also prays for release of the same with interest and then has made a prayer for payment of gratuity, pension and leave encashment accordingly. The petitioner had retired from service in the year 1995. While the petitioner was posted as Block Development & Panchayat Officer, he was placed under suspension on account of filing a criminal case against him under Section 306 IPC. The petitioner was authorised to draw 50% of the salary as subsistence allowance, which later was increased to 75%. In the meanwhile, another FIR was registered against the petitioner on 7.8.1993. The petitioner accordingly superannuated on 30.6.1995 while the cases were pending. The petitioner was not granted the benefit of pension and arrears etc., for which he served a legal notice on 20.9.2007. The prayer was also for treating the suspension period as duty. When the claim of the petitioner was not being attended to, he served a legal notice and then filed Civil Writ Petition No.5334 of 2010. This writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the department to consider all the contentions raised and decide the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Now the claim of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that he had not passed the departmental examination, which was the pre-requisite condition for grant of annual increments. The submission by the counsel appearing for the petitioner is that once the petitioner was promoted, the condition of passing departmental examination would be deemed to be relaxed. Apart from other conditions, the delay on the part of the petitioner in making the present approach directly stares at him.

(2.) The petitioner is seeking release of annual increments for the years 1993, 1994 and 1995. He had superannuated in the year 1995. The date on which he was exonerated of the charges is not forthcoming. There is virtually no explanation forthcoming to explain the inordinate delay in making the present approach for release of increments. The submission that the delay would not mean much once the court directed the respondents to decide the claim of the petitioner in the year 2010 would not impress me. That would not be a valid ground to ignore the delay. In any case, no substantial submissions are made to show how the requirement of passing the departmental examination could be ignored for grant of annual increments. I am, thus, not inclined to interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction.

(3.) The petition is accordingly dismissed.