BHUPINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF J&K AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 08.02.2002 rendered by learned Writ Court holding that the appellant was given promotion as Deputy Forester/Forester w.e.f. 25.02.1967 and 30.09.1982 respectively on notional basis. The appellant had challenged order dated 27.11.1999 passed by respondent No. 2 by setting up the plea that once he has been found to be entitled to promotion on the post of Dy. Forester/Forester with effect from a retrospective date, then he should have been given actual benefits and not the notional benefits. Those benefits have flown to him because he was found senior to those who have been given the actual benefits. In that regard, operative part of order dated 27.11.1999 which was subject matter of challenge before the learned Writ Court may first be noticed:

(2.) When the appellant had filed earlier petition namely SWP No. 1743/1995, the learned Writ Court accepted the claim of the appellant by holding that his case be considered Which led to passing of order dated 27.11.1999. He then initiated the present proceedings seeking entitlement to actual arrears of pay. Accordingly, it was held that he would be entitled to actual benefits w.e.f. August 1992. It was further directed by the learned Writ Court that, if any person, who has not been mentioned in order dated 27.11.1999 has been given further promotion, then the claim of the appellant was also to be considered w.e.f. the same date.

(3.) The appellant did not feel satisfy with the aforesaid directions and on the basis of some imaginary order, he succeeded in persuading the Letters Patent Bench to pass interim order staying the recovery. We repeatedly asked the learned counsel for the appellant to point out any document which is aimed at the recovery of any amount from the appellant, however, he has remained unable to point out any such thing. We have also perused the memorandum of appeal but nothing is found in that regard. It is well settled that in cases where the claims have been made belatedly by an employee, then the arrears have to be confined to the period of three years preceding the date of filing of the petitioner. In that regard, reliance may be placed on judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the cases of Madhav Laximan Vaikunthe v. The State of Mysore, 1962 AIR(SC) 8 & Jagdish Mitter v. Union of India, 1969 SLR 376 (P&M, FB). The learned writ Court, in our view, has expressed the correct opinion by giving the arrears to the appellant for the preceding three years from the date of filing of the earlier petition which was filed in year 1995. By no stretch of imagination, the arrears from 1967 or 1982 would have been paid when the claim was made before the High Court in the year 1995. We entirely agree, with the view taken by the learned Writ Court and hold that the order of learned writ Court proceeds on the correct premise and principle. It does not warrant interference at our hands. The appeal is wholly without merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.