Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BRIJ MOHAN LAL versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Brij Mohan Lal v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 43355 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 13464 (17 August 2006)

 

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. 50

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 43355 of 2006

Brij Mohan Lal  Vs.  State of U.P. and others.

Hon'ble D.P. Singh, J.

Heard counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.

This petition is for a mandamus to the respondents to pay retiral benefits with 18% interest.

The petitioner was working as a Moharrir (Clerk) in Nagar Palika Parishad, Sirsaganj in Firozabad from where he retired on 31.12.1994 but his retiral benefits have not been released till date.

Firstly, it is contended that under Regulation 13(2) of the U.P. Nagar Palika Non-Centralized Service Retirement Benefits Regulation, 1984, the respondents were under a statutory obligation to have paid the retiral benefits immediately after his retirement. Secondly it is urged that the petitioner has a right to receive his dues.

A perusal of Regulation 13 shows that on an application moved on behalf of the incumbent before retirement, the authorities are obliged to take proceedings for finalization of the pension papers. There is no recital in the petition that any such application was moved by the petitioner prior to his retirement.

No doubt, the petitioner is entitled to his retiral dues, but except for bald vague statement that he sent representation to the respondents, neither copy of such representations have been annexed and the only copy of the representation is dated 14.7.2006 and neither no dues certificate has been annexed. The petitioner may have a right for his retiral benefits but the remedy ought to be invoked within a reasonable time. In the present case, he has moved the alleged representation on 14.7.2006 i.e. after 11 years of his retirement. Assuming that he made some representation, but that is not sufficient to explain the inordinate delay. The Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. High Court of Punjab and Haryana and another (AIR 1980 S.C. 1894) has held that the mere filing of non-statutory representation would not be sufficient to explain laches. Apart from that under common law the remedy for recovery of money is hedged with limitation of three years, but no justifiable reason has been given for approaching the Court after such a long delay. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of S.K. Mastan Bee Vs. General Manager, south Central Railway and another [(2003) 1 U.P.L.B.E.C. 247] to contend that even after such a long delay the Courts are bound to interfere. The fact in Mastan Bee's case was entirely different. Therein a illiterate Railway Gang man died in harness and his wife raised a claim for family pension after about 20 years and the High Court came to the conclusion that the wife was illiterate and ignorant of her right for family pension and thus it interfered for granting the benefit which was upheld by the Apex Court. In the present case the petitioner is a clerk who can neither be said to be illiterate nor ignorant of his rights, yet he has slept over his rights for such a long period without any justifiable cause. Therefore, the ratio is not applicable in the present case. The Apex Court in the case of Shri Ballabh Glass Works Ltd. and others Vs. Union of India and others 1984 (3) SCC 362) has held that where the remedy to a right is lost under common law, the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not exercised.

For the reasons above, the Court is not inclined to exercise its extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rejected.

Dt: 17.8.2006

AU


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.