Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Mohd. Faizan v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 29871 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 12008 (16 July 2007)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.

Heard counsel for the petitioner.

By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for mandamus commanding the respondents to pay salary to the petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher (Urdu).  Petitioner's case in the writ petition is that the petitioner was appointed on 9.8.1996 which appointment was cancelled and he was again appointed on 2nd of September, 1996 by the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari. The petitioner joined on 3.9.1996.  The petitioner's case is that thereafter several representations were given to the Basic Shiksha Adhikari but no salary was paid to him.  The petitioner has come up in this writ petition for payment of salary. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to an order of this Court dated 4.2.1997 passed in writ petition No. 42424 of 1997(Qumrul Naim Khan and others  Versus Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Ballia and others) which writ petition has been allowed on 21.8.1999 by setting aside the order dated 1.10.1997 and liberty was given to the Basic Shiksha Adhikari to pass order.  Further, the counsel for the petitioner relied on the order dated  5.10.2004 passed in writ petition No. 2703 of 2001 (Ahsan Shahnawaz and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & others ).  The petitioner cannot take any benefit of the aforesaid orders passed in above mentioned writ petitions filed by other persons.  One writ petition was filed in the year 1997 and another writ petition was filed in 2001.   In the aforesaid cases the order was also challenged  by which their services were terminated.  Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been representing the matter hence the direction be issued to the respondents for making payment of his salary.  

The petitioner's case in the writ petition is that he joined on 3.9.1996. Petitioner has not been paid salary even for one month. The cause of action to the petitioner for payment of salary arose in the year 1996 itself when he was not paid salary. It  was open for the petitioner to approach this Court  within reasonable time more than a decade has passed when the cause of action arose to the petitioner.  The claim of the petitioner  for payment of salary  from 3.9.1996 is highly barred by latches. The reference two writ petitions given by the petitioner also does not help the petitioner in this case. Those writ petitions were filed by different persons much earlier one writ petition in the year 1997 and other in 2001. This writ petition is highly barred by latches  and cannot be entertained by this Court.

The writ petition is dismissed on the ground of latches.    




Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.