Dr. Om Prakash Lat hwal v. St at e of Ut t arakhand and ot hers

: Mr. Tanupriya Joshi, learned counsel. Counsel for t he r espondent s : Mr. S.S. Chaudhary, learned St anding Counsel for t he St at e. JUD GM EN T : ( p e r Sr i G. N a r e n d a r , C.J.) Heard learned counsel for t he appellant .

2. The case of t he appellant - writ pet it ioner is t hat he has not been paid salary for t he period bet ween 01.05.2014 t o

15.07.2014, second annual increm ent for t he period bet ween

26.05.2013 t o 25.05.2014, t hird annual increm ent for t he period bet ween 26.05.2014 t o 15.07.2014 and HRA for t he period bet ween 01.08.2011 t o 31.07.2012.

3. The learned Single Judge, placing reliance on t he j udgm ent of t he Hon’ble Apex Court in Un i o n o f I n d i a v s. Ta r se m Si n g h report ed in ( 2 0 0 8 ) 8 SCC 6 4 8 , has been pleased t o rej ect t he claim as being hit by delay and laches.

4. The claim relat es t o t he period ending 15 t h July, 2014 and t he writ pet it ion is of t he year 2025. 1

5. I t t he case of t he pet it ioner t hat several represent at ions were being given.

6. Represent at ions will not ext end t he lim it at ion. The period of lim it at ion recovery of m onies under t he Lim it at ion Act is t hree years.

7. I n t hat view, we do not find any error or illegalit y in t he reasoning set out by t he learned Single Judge.

9. Accordingly, t he Appeal st ands rej ect ed. Aft er t he dict at ion of t he order, learned counsel for t he appellant - writ pet it ioner places reliance on a ruling of t he Apex Court in Sh a k t i Bh o g Fo o d I n d u st r i e s Lt d . v s. Ce n t r a l Ba n k o f I n d i a a n d a n o t h e r report ed in A I R 2 0 2 0 SC 2 7 2 1 , and part icularly relies on Paragraph- 14, which reads as under: receiving t he basis t o ext end “ 14. Revert ing t o t he argum ent t hat exchange of let t ers or correspondence bet ween t he part ies t he period of cannot be lim it at ion, in our opinion, for t he view t aken by us hit hert o, t he sam e need not be dilat ed furt her. I nasm uch as, having not iced from t he averm ent s in t he plaint t hat t he right t o sue accrued t o t he appellant on t he Senior Manager, dat ed 8.5.2002, and in part icular let t er dat ed 19.9.2002, and again on firm refusal by t he respondent s dat ed 23.12.2003 in response t o t he legal not ice sent by t he appellant on 28.11.2003; and once again on t he follow up legal not ice on 7.1.2005, t he plaint filed in lim it at ion. February, 2005 would be well wit hin Considering t he form er event s of firm response by t he respondent s on 8.5.2002 and in part icular, 19.9.2002, t he correspondence ensued t hereaft er Advocat e’s let t er let t er 2 including t he t wo legal not ices sent by t he appellant , filed on if disregarded, t erm s 23.2.2005 would be wit hin of Art icle 113.” t he plaint / suit lim it at ion

11. The claim is on t he basis of failure t o pay. I n t hat view, t he quest ion of t here being any furt her denial would not arise. The cause of act ion arose, even according t o t he appellant - writ pet it ioner, in 2014. The dat e, on which t he cause of act ion arose, is not ed in t he t abular colum n in Paragraph No. 3 of t he j udgm ent - rat her t he period during which t he appellant was denied t he benefit s.

12. I n t hat view, t he inst ant j udgm ent is not applicable t o t he inst ant fact s of t he case.

13. There shall be no order as t o cost s.

14. Pending applicat ion, if any, also st ands disposed of. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ G. N A REN DA R, C.J. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ SUBH A SH UPA D H YA Y, J. Dt : 25 t h August , 2025 Rat hour PRAVINDR A SINGH RATHOUR RATHOUR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=23699ccc2fd40ad81b6fd13323779d9 e3aeb1097d17dbb53d481cabd25946eed, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=1F65499E931DF71CDAF92A40 CC6179B8E010331BA695239171F906FD5C45 C4E8, cn=PRAVINDRA SINGH RATHOUR 3