Patna High Court
Umesh KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- PARTHA SARTHY
Holding
The petition is barred by delay and latches and is therefore dismissed.
Summary
The petitioners, retired government employees, filed a writ application seeking to have their salary increment date changed to 1 January 2016 under the 7th Pay Revision, along with arrears and pension benefits. They alleged that despite repeated requests to the Judge In-charge, the increment date was not corrected. The court noted that the petition was filed many years after retirement and that the petitioners offered no documentary evidence to support their claim. Citing the decision in Surjeet Singh Sahni v. State of U.P. (2022) 15 SCC 536, the court held that filing a representation does not extend the limitation period and that the petition must be filed within a reasonable time. Consequently, the application was dismissed on the ground of delay and latches.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners' writ application for alteration of increment date and payment of arrears is barred by limitation and delay.
- Whether filing representations after retirement extends the limitation period for filing a writ petition.
Subjects
- writ jurisdiction
- increment
- 7th Pay Revision
- limitation
- delay
- laches
- pensionary benefits
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3281 of 2026
======================================================
1. Umesh Kumar Son of late Kameshwar Singh, Resident of village
Ibrahimpur Nagwan Khas, P.S. Naubatpur, District Patna PIN 801109.
2. Dhairya Prakash, Son of Late Ram Nanhak Ram, Resident of village Gop
Nuaon, P.O. Central Jail, Buxar, P.S.- Buxar, District Buxar 802102.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Finance Department,
Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The High Court of Judicature at Patna through its Registrar General, Patna.
3. The District Judge, Buxar at Buxar.
4. The Judge In-charge, Accounts Section, Buxar Civil Court, Buxar.
5. The District Accounts Officer, Buxar at Buxar.
6. The Principal Accountant General, Bihar, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Dr. Mayanand Jha, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Giridhar Gopal Tiwary, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, AC to GP- 3
For the High Court : Mr. Piyush Lall, Advocate
For the AG : Ms. Ritika Rani, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL ORDER
2 10-03-2026 Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioners and
learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioners have filed the instant application for
the following relief:
“1. That this is an application for
issuance of an appropriate writ / order /
direction, commanding the Respondents to
grant increment to the petitioners with effect
from 1st January of the Year (in place of 1st
July) with effect from 1.1.2016 in terms of
Patna High Court CWJC No.3281 of 2026(2) dt.10-03-2026
2/3
the provisions contained in clause 9 of the
Govt. of Bihar, Finance Department
Resolution No.3A-2Ve. Pu.-09/2016-3590/F
dt.24th May 2017 (7th Pay Revision) with
consequential benefits like payment of the
arrears of salary difference owing to shift of
date of increment and benefit thereof in
pensionary benefits.”
3. On perusal of the contents of the writ petition, it
transpires that the petitioners joined service on 29.3.1985 and
26.3.1985 respectively. Having superannuated from service six
years back on 31.1.2020, the petitioners have filed the instant
application for the relief as stated herein above.
4. On being confronted with the delay and latches in
moving this Court under the writ jurisdiction, learned Senior
counsel appearing for the petitioners refers to paragraph no. 12
of the petition to submit that even after retirement, the
petitioners kept on requesting the Judge In-charge to rectify the
date of increment of the petitioners but despite oral assurances,
nothing was done and the Judge In-charge also kept on changing
after implementation of the pay scale under 7th PRC.
5. It may only be observed here that even this
statement as noted above is without any supporting documents
and further as held in the case of Surjeet Singh Sahni vs. State
Patna High Court CWJC No.3281 of 2026(2) dt.10-03-2026
3/3
of U.P. and Ors.; (2022) 15 SCC 536, filing of representation
does not extend the period of limitation. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court has held that the petitioner has to approach the Court
within a reasonable time.
6. In the opinion of the Court, the case is fit to be
rejected on the ground of delay and latches alone.
7. The application is dismissed.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
sauravkrsinha/-
U
Checking your session…