WPSS/1626/2018 of Dhaneshwari Devi Vs State Of Uttarakhand AND OTHERS

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Writ Petition No. 1626 (S/S) of 2018

Dhaneshwari Devi ..…Petitioner

Versus

State of Uttarakhand and Others .…Respondents

Mr. Lalit Samant, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. T.S. Bisht, Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent nos.1 to 3. Mrs. Beena Pandey, Standing Counsel for the State Uttar Pradesh /respondent no.4

Hon’ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

The petitioner is widow.

2. The case of the petitioner is that her husband who was appointed as Peon in work charge establishment with the respondents as back as on 01.03.1975. He was brought into regular establishment on 09.07.1998. Ultimately, the husband of the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation on 31.01.2007 and he retired from the services.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the husband of the petitioner had submitted representation on 04.06.2010, after almost three and half years of retirement praying for grant of pension and gratuity, but the representation of the petitioner’s husband was not considered and decided.

4. The precise argument of the petitioner is that the pensionary benefits and gratuity be calculated based on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Habib Khan’s case and bunch of cases as decided by this Court on 26.04.2018, after including the services rendered in the work charge establishment, this representation according to the petitioner remain pending. What is surprisingly is that this representation as claimed to have been submitted by the petitioner does not bear any endorsement of receipt of the office of the respondents. Furthermore, even the averments as made in the writ petition, there is no specific averments made by the petitioner as to mode and manner in which the representation dated 04.06.2010 was served the upon respondents.

5. Even, it is presumed and taken to be true that late husband of the petitioner did submit his representation on 04.06.2010. There is yet again no material on record that even after submission of representation on 04.06.2010, and thereafter, after the death of the husband of the petitioner in the year 2014, any steps was taken by the late husband himself or the petitioner herself for getting her grievances redressed as claimed by her husband said to have been taken on 04.06.2010. Still the matter was

put to slumber and even after filing of the representation dated 04.06.2010, the petitioner or her late husband has not invoked the writ jurisdiction or claim before any Competent Court to get the rights pertaining to the settlement of post retiral dues after including the period of work charge establishment.

6. Even this writ petition which has been filed on 15.06.2018, carrying an averment of service of representation dated 04.06.2010 has been filed almost after eight years at highly belated stage and it cannot be ruled out that the basis of filing of this writ petition at highly belated stage almost after 11 years from the date of retirement of petitioner’s husband who retired on 31.01.2007, it is only after the adjudication made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Habib Khan’s case dated 23.08.2017, as well as, after the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in bunch of Special Appeal No.494 of 2017, State of Uttarakhand & Another vs. Brahm Pal Singh, as decided on 26.04.2018. At this stage, no interference would be called for in the writ petition being highly belated because there are catena of judgments that when redressal is sought of grievance at highly belated stage and in an event, an adjudication is made after granting the benefit of laches which entails upon

financial implications on the State’s Exchequer. the Court should be slow in entertaining petitions. The delay in invoking the writ jurisdiction has to be construed strictly, as such, this Court does not find any merit in the present writ petition.

7. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed on the ground of laches. No other argument has been raised by the petitioner. However, there would be not order as to costs.

Ravi

(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)

18.06.2018