Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:86975-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 465 of 2025 Appellant :- Smt Sudha Singh Respondent :- State Of Up And 4 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Pramod Kumar Dubey,Satyendra Chandra Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Praveen Kumar Giri,J. 1. This appeal arises out of an order passed by the learned Single Judge on 30.04.2025, whereby the appellant's Writ-A No. 8146 of 2023 was disposed of, rejecting the claim of the petitioner. The appellant was petitioner No. 2 in the writ filed before the learned Single Judge. In Paragraph 4 of the judgement of the learned Single Judge, it is observed that petitioner No. 2 has been absorbed in other institution and, therefore, her claim is rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that the facts have not been correctly noticed by the learned Single Judge and the grievance raised in the writ has not been addressed. 3. From the facts placed on record, it transpires that the appellant, who was petitioner No. 2 before the learned Single Judge, is the widow of one Manoj Kumar Singh, who was appointed in the institution concerned in the year 1996 as an Assistant Teacher. He continued to work and also received salary till January 2006. His salary was stopped from February 2006 to August 2015. He ultimately got appointed on the post of Headmaster on 08.09.2015. The appellant's husband continued to receive salary on the post of Headmaster till he died in the year 2019. The claim of the appellant was in respect of the denial of salary between the period February 2006 to August 2015, when he allegedly worked as an Assistant Teacher. It is submitted that this was the sole grievance of the appellant, which has neither been noticed by the learned Single Judge nor is dealt with. 4. Learned State Counsel, on the other hand, opposes the claim of the appellant on the ground that while appellant's husband remained alive till 2019, no grievance was ever raised with regard to the denial of salary between February 2006 to August 2015 and no writ petition etc., was filed. It is urged that since the deceased employee acquiesced to the denial of salary and there is no material to show that the working of the husband of the appellant was admitted, as such, raising of the claim after such a long lapse of time would be impermissible. It is also pointed out that the appellant's son has been offered compassionate appointment and apparently learned Single Judge referred to such compassionate appointment as being a case of absorption. 5. From the facts placed on the record, it is undisputed that while the appellant's husband was alive, no grievance was ever raised with regard to the denial of salary from the period February 2006 to August 2015. The appellant's husband was ultimately selected on the post of Headmaster in the year 2015 and having joined as such, he received salary till the time he died. In the event appellant's husband was working as an Assistant Teacher and salary was denied to him, he was expected to have raised a grievance in that regard. 6. The mere fact that for almost 9 years neither any grievance was raised nor any petition was filed would clearly indicate that appellant's husband had actually not worked for the period February 2006 to August 2015 or had otherwise acquiesced to the situation where salary was denied. 7. In such circumstances, we are of the view that after four years of the death of the employee concerned, the widow could not be permitted to raise a grievance with regard to the denial of salary to her husband between the period February 2006 to August 2015, when the husband himself never raised an issue in that regard. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant places reliance upon a judgment of the hon'ble Supreme Court in Man Singh vs. Uttar Pradesh through Secretary; AIRONLINE 2022 SC 1310. It is submitted that the hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case provided that even if the appointment was irregular and discontinued by the employer, yet the employee would be entitled to salary if he has actually worked. Reliance is also placed upon the judgment of hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and Others vs. Tarsem Singh; (2008) 8 SCC 648. 9. Both the aforesaid judgments are not shown to have any applicability in the facts of the present case, as we find that the entitlement of the deceased husband of the appellant to receive salary is not established. It is a potential claim which is sought to be resurrected by the appellant in respect of payment of salary between February 2006 to August 2015, in the year 2023, after the death of her husband in the year 2019. 10. We are of the view that such claims after inordinate delay cannot be allowed to be raised, particularly when the aggrieved person himself had acquiesced to the situation and never raised any grievance. 11. This special appeal fails and is dismissed. Order Date :- 22.5.2025 K.Tiwari Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KANT TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad