Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

VIJAY SINGH versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Vijay Singh v. Union Of India And Another - WRIT - A No. 33005 of 1994 [2005] RD-AH 3340 (21 September 2005)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 26

Civil Misc. Writ Petition  No.33005 of 1994

Vijay Singh.......................................................................Petitioner

Versus

Union of India and another .........................................Respondents

Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.

Heard Sri R. B. Singh, learned counsel of the petitioner  and Sri Anup Kumar Srivastava appearing for the respondents.

By this Writ Petition  the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to grant disability pension to the petitioner.  The case of the petitioner in the Writ Petition  is that he joined service in the Army on 26.7.1962 and served the department till 19th December, 1965. The petitioner was lastly posted in Base Workshop Unit No. 512, Pune in State of Maharashtra.  The counsel appearing for the respondents raised two preliminary objections.  First objection to the Writ Petition  is that the petitioner has approached this Court with inordinate delay and the Writ Petition  is liable to be dismissed on the ground of latches.  Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner was discharged from Army service on 19.12.1965 and discharge certificate was issued to the petitioner in the year 1965 itself on 21st December, 1965.  The learned counsel of the respondents further contended that the petitioner's claim for disability pension was rejected vide the letter dated 15.2.1966 which was  communicated to the petitioner on 16.3.1966.  The Writ Petition  has been filed after twenty eight years of rejection of the claim of disability pension which is highly barred by latches and the Writ Petition  should be dismissed on this ground alone.  Learned counsel for the respondents has secondly submitted that the petitioner was discharged from Pune  in the State of Maharashtra and this Court has no territorial jurisdiction  to entertain this Writ Petition.  He has also placed reliance on the judgement of the Full Bench  Rajendra Kumar Mishra  Versus   Union of India and others  reported in 2005 (1) UPLBEC   108.  Learned counsel of the petitioner replying the objection  of the counsel for the respondents on the ground of  latches, submitted that the petitioner has submitted  several representations and had  lastly given a notice through his counsel on 28th October, 1993 to the respondents hence the latches has been explained.  From the Writ Petition  it appears that only document filed to the Writ Petition  is the copy of notice dated 28.10.1993 sent through Advocate Annexure III to the Writ Petition.  The petitioner having  discharged from Army service on 19.12.1965, he ought to have approached the Court for relief regarding claim of disability pension within reasonable time.  The fact that the petitioner has submitted several representations and lastly gave a notice on 28th October, 1993 does not explain laltches.  The submission of the representations for long period of time can neither extend the period of limitation or can be said to be satisfactory explanation for delay.  In the present writ petition there is delay of about twenty eight years in approaching the Court. The apex Court in A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 1979  Naib Subedar Lachhman Dass  Versus   Union of India & others upheld the order of the High Court dismissing the Writ Petition  on the ground of latches  when the Writ Petition  was filed after four years of the  discharge of an army personnel.  Twenty eight years delay in approaching the Court in the present case is sufficient for rejecting the claim of the petitioner.  The Writ Petition  has been filed with inordinate delay  and cannot be entertained and is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.  

In view of the fact that the Writ Petition  is being dismissed  on the ground of latches  it is not necessary to consider the second objection of counsel for the respondents regarding territorial jurisdiction of this Court.

The writ petition is dismissed on the ground of latches..

D/-7.9.2005

SCS    


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.