Brajesh Prasad Singh v. The Engineer-In-Chief-Cum-Additional
Case at a glance
- Bench
- NAVIN SINHA
Outcome
Dismissed
The application is dismissed
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 1111. The appellant’s contention, however, is that, even if suit was barred by time, he would get three years more of arrears of salary as within time if Article 120 (instead of Article 102) Limitation Act of 1908 was applied and each failure to pay…
Judgment
.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vijay Kumar Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sanjay Kr No.2 Ga5 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA ORAL ORDER 2 19-04-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The relief sought in the writ application is for payment of arrears of salary for the period 01.02.1986 to
28.02.1986, from 01.09.1987 to 30.10.1992, from 01.08.1995 to Patna High Court CWJC No.5858 of 2012 (2) dt.19-04-2012
31.12.1995 and 01.02.2003 to 28.02.2003. There is no statement in the writ petition that during the period in question the petitioner took any steps much less a representation to seek relief for payment of salary. He superannuated on 31.01.2012 and on that date he submitted the representation. The relief sought is essentially a money claim founded on a statutory right. The limitation for enforcement of the claim of three years stood lapsed long years ago. The petitioner is to be blamed himself for not pursuing his claims. He cannot, in the circumstances be now permitted to invoke the extra ordinary discretionary jurisdiction of the Court, when the statutory remedy stood barred. In (1974) 1 SCC 338 (Sakal Deep Sahai Srivastava v. Union of India) it was held as follows:- ``8. The only question of some difficulty raised before us is whether Article 102 or Article 120 of the Limitation Act of 1908 would apply to the case. After having heard the attractive arguments of Mr. Yogeshwar Prasad, we have no doubt that a good deal can be said in favour of the contention that a claim for arrears of salary is distinguishable from a claim for wages. But, our difficulty is that the question appears to us to be no longer open for consideration afresh by us, or, at any rate, it is not Patna High Court CWJC No.5858 of 2012 (2) dt.19-04-2012 advisable to review the authorities of this Court, after such a lapse of time when, despite the view taken by this Court that Article 102 of the Limitation Act of 1908 was applicable to such cases, the Limitation Act of 1963 had been passed repeating the law, contained in Articles 102 and 120 of the Limitation Act of 1908, identical terms without any modification. The legislature must be presumed to be cognizant of the view of this Court that a claim of the nature before us, for arrears of salary, falls within the purview of Article 102 of the Limitation Act of 1908….”
Operative part
The appellant’s contention, however, is that, even if suit was barred by time, he would get three years more of arrears of salary as within time if Article 120 (instead of Article 102) Limitation Act of 1908 was applied and each failure to pay the monthly salary due constituted a fresh cause of action. We cannot accept this view as we have, for reasons already given, held that Article 102 of the Limitation Act, 1908, was correctly applied.” The application is dismissed. Md. Ibrarul/- (Navin Sinha, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The application is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Limitation Act, 1963.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.