Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:51363-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 600 of 2024 Appellant :- Smt Prabhawati Devi Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Nawal Kishor Mishra,Ved Prakash Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Tej Bhan Singh Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J. 1. This special appeal is directed against an order passed by learned Single Judge on 6.2.2024 in Writ-A No.1559 of 2024, whereby challenge laid to the order dated 18.10.2023 is rejected. Petitioner's claim for payment of regular salary between 5.8.1986 to 18.2.1998 has also been rejected. 2. Undisputed facts that emerge on record are that an appointment was offered to the petitioner in 1986 on fix salary as a Class-IV employee. The appointment apparently was offered as the petitioner's husband had died. This appointment on fix salary was not challenged and the petitioner joined. The petitioner appellant ultimately was regularized in the employment on 28.2.1998. This regularization order is also not under challenge. The petitioner appellant continued to work as such and ultimately superannuated in 2020. It is thereafter that claim was made for treating the services of petitioner between 5.9.1986 to 28.2.1998, as substantive period of appointment and to release the difference of salary payable for such period. The claim of petitioner was directed to be considered. The District Basic Education Officer vide his order dated 18.10.2023 rejected such claim on the ground that the petitioner since acquiesced to the initial appointment offered to her on fix salary and has otherwise not challenged her regularization in 1998, it would be too late in the day to entertain a grievance with regard to initial appointment offered to the petitioner. Learned Single Judge has found substance in the view taken by the District Basic Education Officer and has observed that the claim of petitioner appellant was grossly barred by laches. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner is a widow lady, with limited qualification and was not aware about her rights at the time of her initial appointment, and therefore, a sympathetic consideration of her claim was warranted. It is also submitted that once the appointment on compassionate ground is offered, such appointment has to be substantive in nature and character and the offering of appointment on fix salary was otherwise contrary to law. It is, therefore, submitted that for the period 1986 to 1998 the petitioner is entitled to difference of salary and such period is also liable to be counted towards the period spent on duty for calculation of pension etc. 4. We have heard Sri Nawal Kishor Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Tej Bhan Singh, learned counsel for the respondents. 5. The facts, as have been noticed above are not disputed. It remains undisputed that the appellant was offered appointment in 1986 on fixed salary. Though we find substance that such compassionate appointment ought to have been on substantive basis, but we are not inclined to enter into this aspect of the matter for two reasons. Firstly, the appellant acquiesced to such appointment. Secondly the claim in that regard has been raised almost after 34 years. 6. It is otherwise undisputed that services of appellant was regularized in 1998. The regularization order is also not under challenge. The petitioner/appellant continued to work and has ultimately superannuated in 2020. The claim with regard to legality of the initial appointment offered to the appellant is thus not liable to be entertained, after such long lapse of time. Not just that inordinate period of time has lapsed but the petitioner has otherwise acquiesced to such appointment. We also find that petitioner appellant has been extended all benefits as per her entitlement and she is also getting her pension every month. In such circumstances, after such long time we find that it is not a fit case for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Learned Single Judge has committed no error in refusing to entertain such belated claim. 7. The special appeal, consequently, lacks merit and is dismissed. Order Date :- 9.4.2025 Anil Digitally signed by :- ANIL KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad