IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION (S/S) NO. 271 OF 2003 Panchhi Ram, Ex-G.S. 152864-N,S Suptd. E/M II. ……………Petitioner. Versus Officers Incharge (Appointing Authority) and others. …………..Respondents. Mr. M.C.Pant, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Anjali Bhargava, Advocate for the respondents. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) This writ petition pertains to fixation of salary pertaining to the year 1970 when the petitioner joined a new organisation i.e. General Reserved Engineer Force (GREF). This writ petition was filed in the year 2003. There is an unreasonable delay in filing of the writ petition, a delay which has not been properly explained by the petitioner. The writ petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed on the ground of latches alone, however, the case has also been examined on its merit. The petitioner joined this Central Services in December, 1970 in Border Road Organisation of Government of India. Prior to it since 1962 to 1970, he was working as a Family Planning Health Assistant in Government of Uttar Pradesh. At the time of joining services in the Central Government Organisation, there was no arrangement or agreement that the salary being drawn by the petitioner prior to his joining Central Government services would be protected. The petitioner has shown no law which entitles him that the earlier pay drawn by him in the earlier service shall be protected, even though the new salary in the Central Government organisation is lower than what he was drawing earlier. It is an admitted fact that his past services rendered as an 2 employee of the State of Uttar Pradesh have been counted for pensionary benefits. The present dispute is only relating to fixation of pay. It has already been stated that the petitioner joined services in Central Government organisation in 1970. The cause of action, if any, arose to the petitioner in 1970. This writ petition has been filed in the year 2003. However, as well alone the petitioner has no case, as he joined services of Central Government organisation knowing truly well the existing terms and conditions of his services, as it has already been referred above. In view of the aforesaid, there is no merit in the writ petition. The same is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 18.6.2010 Avneet