Prem Lata vs State of HP, & Ors.

By way of present writ petition, the petitioner has mainly prayed for the following reliefs:-

ii) That this Hon''ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in favour of petitioner and against the respondents to the effect that respondents may be directed to pay interest @ 12% per annum to the petitioner on the amount of Rs. 38,732/- which was admissible to the petitioner and was unnecessary withheld by the respondents from January, 2000 to 2003, 11.2.2008, the date when respondents released the same.

iii) That this Hon''ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents to the effect that the petitioner be paid Rs. 1.00 lacs as compensation on account of mental harassment caused by the respondents."

The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that pay admissible to her from the year 2000 to 2003 was arbitrarily withheld by respondents upto 11.2.2008 and the act of respondents of delaying the release of her pay/arrears is arbitrary and therefore the petitioner be paid interest @ 12% per annum on the said amount of Rs. 38,732/- and also damages to the tune of Rs. 1.00 Lac by way of compensation. Petitioner happens to be an employee of Shree Naina Devi Ji Trust, Bilaspur.

In its reply so filed to the petition on behalf of the Trust, it is stated therein that the Trust was being maintained and managed on the basis of the offerings of the devotees and Shree Shakti Sanskrit College, Shree Naina Devi Ji, Bilaspur was also being run out of the said funds and offerings by the devotees and no grant was made by the Government or any other authority to the Trust. It has also been denied in the reply that the petitioner was engaged as a librarian as alleged. It is also stated in the reply that an amount of Rs. 38,732/- which was deducted stands duly paid to the petitioner and therefore the petition had been rendered infructuous.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

During the course of arguments Mr. K.D. Sood, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.3 on instructions submitted that the petitioner had also filed another writ petition in this Court i.e. CWP No. 2213 of 2008 titled Prem Lata Thakur Vs. State of HP and others wherein she was laying her claim qua the reliefs claimed on the ground that she was serving as a librarian in the college in issue which petition was dismissed by Learned Single Judge and the appeal so filed before Hon''ble Division Bench stands withdrawn by the petitioner. This factual position has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

It is a matter of record as is evident from the pleadings of the parties that an amount of Rs. 38,732/- was received by her in November, 2008 as arrears of salary. It is nowhere mentioned in the petition that petitioner accepted the said amount under protest. This writ petition was filed in September, 2012 i.e. after about four years of the said amount having been released to the petitioner. Nothing has been stated in the petition as to why the petitioner approached this Court for grant of reliefs as prayed for after four years. In fact representation which stands appended with the petition is an undated representation. Moreover, there is nothing in the petition from which it can be deciphered as to when actually the amount which was disbursed to the petitioner in the year 2008 became due to her and whether there was any intentional delay on the part of respondent- Trust in disbursing the said amount to the petitioner. It is settled principle of law that he who alleges has to prove. Therefore, onus was upon the petitioner to have had proved that besides there being a delay in the release of arrears in her favour, the said delay was intentional and not bonafide. This in my considered view the petitioner has miserably failed to demonstrate. Even otherwise such like facts that when actually the amount which was disbursed to the petitioner in the year 2008 became due to her and whether there was any intentional delay on the part of the Trust in releasing the said amount, in my considered view, are disputed question of fact which cannot be gone into in writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, in view of above discussion, this writ petition is dismissed as the same is devoid of any merit. However, it is clarified that dismissal of this writ petition shall not debar the petitioner from pursuing her remedy before the appropriate forum for claim of interest and compensation for the alleged delay in the release of arrears in her favour by the respondent-Trust in accordance with law. Petition is accordingly dismissed, so also pending applications, if any.