HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 12727 of 2025 Court No. - 7 HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J. (1) Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties. (2) Petition has been filed seeking a direction to authority concerned for payment of arrears of salary due to her deceased husband for the period 01.10.1973 to 04.12.1975 and for months of April & July, 1973 alongwith interest. (3) Further prayer has been sought to opposite parties for re-determination of death-cum-retiral dues on the basis of initial appointment w.e.f. 18.07.1968 in place of 05.12.1975. (4) Learned State Counsel at the very outset has raised a preliminary objection regarding entertainability of this petition in view of the fact that grievance raised pertains not only to a stale but a dead claim. It is submitted that petitioner's late husband was engaged in service on Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Aditya Kumar Tiwari, Mohit Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Aruna Srivastava .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Agriculture Civil Sectt. Lko. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) 10.07.1968 whereafter he passed away in harness in the year 2002 and never raised any claim as is being raised by petitioner. (5) Learned counsel for petitioner in response thereto submits that although petitioner's husband was engaged in service in the year 1968 but on 05.12.1975 he was placed under suspension and was subsequently dismissed from service vide order dated 02.05.1984 which was challenged before State Public Services Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 315/III/85 but due to difference of opinion was referred to for adjudication to a third Judge who by means of judgment and order dated 24.09.1997 allowed the claim petition. The said order was thereafter challenged by the State in Writ Petition No. 825 (SB) of 1998 and was ultimately dismissed by means of judgment and order dated 18.09.2012, but in the meantime, petitioner's husband passed away on 02.10.2002. (6) It is submitted that at that time, petitioner was unaware with regard to salary of her husband not having been paid and became aware only after receiving the Service Book. (7) Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, admitted facts are narrated here-in-above. It is thus evident that aspect of litigation pertaining to deceased husband of petitioner commenced only when he was placed under suspension on 05.12.1975 whereas WRIA No. 12727 of 2025 2 claim sought in the present petition is prior to the said date for the years from 01.10.973 to 04.12.1975. (8) Evidently, claim as is being made in the present writ petition was not a subject matter of adjudication in the litigation which ensued subsequently since 1975. It is also evident that petitioner's late husband never agitated for the said claim during his life-time. (9) In pursuance of representation submitted by petitioner, reply has been provided vide letter dated 10.01.2025 (Annexure - 10 to the writ petition) clearly indicating the fact that salary for aforesaid period was denied to petitioner's late husband on the ground of 'No Work No Pay' since he absented himself from duty during the aforesaid period. It is not the case of petitioner that said order pertaining to salary being restrained was never challenged by petitioner's husband. (10) In view of above discussion, petition is extremely belated and involves not only a stale but a completely dead claim. (11) In view of above, petition fails and is dismissed at the admission stage itself. Parties to bear their own costs. October 31, 2025 lakshman WRIA No. 12727 of 2025 3 (Manish Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- LAKSHMANA KUMAR TAMMANA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench