IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7616 of 2009 DINESH PASWAN, S/O SONELAL PASWAN R/O VILLAGE SAGI P.O. DAULATPUR, P.S. KHODAVANPUR, DISTT. BEGUSARAI. .............PETITIONER. Versus 1.THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI. 2.DIRECTOR OF ACCOUNT POSTAL SERVICE NAGPUR, MAHARASHTRA. 3.COMMANDANT, ARMY POSTAL SERVICE CENTRE, KAMPTEE, MAHARASHTRA. 4.RECORD OFFICERS ARMY POSTAL SERVICE (RECORDS)KAMPTEE, MAHARASHTRA. 5.UNIT OFFICE-IN-CHARGE, M.B. AREA, S.D.S. UNIT, 0/56, A.P.O. JABALPUR MADEYAPRADESH SENIOR RECORD OFFICER ARMY POSTAL TRAINING CENTRE, KAMPTEE, MAHARASHTRA. ..............RESPONDENTS. ----------- 3/ 09.05.2011 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the Union of India representing the Army Authorities. In this writ application, the prayer of the petitioner reads as follows:- (I) For issuance of a writ of mandamus or an appropriate writ directing the respondent authorities to remove the discrepancies in the fixation of pay of the petitioner which has occurred long back and could not be removed on spite of repeated representation made by the petitioner time to time. (ii) For direction to the concerned respondent authority to set right the pay scale of the petitioner from the date it was admissible to him and further be pleased to direct to fix the pension of the petitioner in the light of corrected pay scale, for which the petitioner was entitled to on the date of his retirement. (iii) For direction to pay the 2 arrears of the enhanced/corrected salary of the petitioner, from the date he was entitled to up to the date of his retirement together with interest thereon. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there was anomaly in pay fixation of the petitioner which ought to have been removed by the respondents and to that extent their refusal to do so on the ground that it was time barred is absolutely unsustainable either in fact or in law. In this context, reliance has been placed on the communication dated 21.08.2002, as contained in Annexure-4, wherein, according to learned counsel for petitioner, the matter was already taken up while the petitioner was in service. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand have explained that the petitioner came to be employed in the armed forces on 05.12.1983 and had earned his promotion as a Naik on 19.12.1991 and further as Havildar on 31.03.1998 and thereafter, he was discharged from service on completion of 24 years in armed forces on 31.12.2007. In this regard, it has also been 3 stated that when the petitioner had submitted his pension papers, he had also given declaration in writing on 29.12.2007 that he had no pending claim against the Army and that he will not make any such claim in future. In the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner is trying to raise a stale matter of the year 1986, as has been clearly noted in Annexure-4 to the writ application itself, wherein, while examining the belated claim of the petitioner, the concerned authority Director of Accounts (Postal), Nagpur had stated as follows:- 'In this case it is observed that enamaly arrised from 01.02.1986 when the pay of this Junior official was stepped up. Whereas official has prefered his application on 09.02.2000. Please investigate reasons for delay. In case, the reasons are genuine and admitted by the Competent authority under rule 188 at P-1-2. Please submitted the case with comparative statement in prescribed formate and certificate that conditions laid down in para 8 at SIII-3/5/86 have been fulfilled.' From reading of the aforementioned communication, it becomes clear that an issue of the year 1986 was sought to be raised by 4 the petitioner for the first time in the year 2000 i.e. after 14 years. Such abornmal delay in fact by itself was good enough for rejecting the claim of the petitioner especially when he having retired from service had also given his unequivocal declaration that he had no pending claim with the Army Authorities. This Court in fact after 25 years of the cause of action can not issue a direction for stepping up to pay the allowances of the petitioner and therefore, the delay in either moving the departmental authorities or unexplained delay in moving this Court by filing this writ application on 07.07.2009 itself would be fatal for maintaining this writ application. Army authorities are not required to maintain such record for an indefinite period for every Jawan from the first day of his employment for its being verified and re-verified for the purposes of fixation of salary and therefore, the respondents cannot be now directed to make a verification of the alleged claim of the petitioner of the year 5 1986, when according to him some juniors to him had been given higher pay. Such stepping up of pay being immediate cause of action to a person if he would sleep over his rights as was done by the petitioner in this case, by itself would be good enough for acquiescence and consequential rejection at a belated charge. The petitioner had already retired from service and his pensionary benefits had already been settled paid and now this Court would not permit him to reopen the issue as to whether he was wrongly denied Rs. 100/- in the year 1986 by not stepping up his pay which may lead to entire recalculation of payment of arrears of salary and consequential revision of the pension. That being so, this application is wholly misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J)