Dr. Sambuddha Chakrabarti, J.

By this writ petition the petitioner has challenged an order dated September 28, 2001 passed by the Deputy Chairman, Dock Labour Board.

The petitioner’s husband was an employee under the Calcutta Dock Labour Board. He met with an accident in the year 1990. Although medically treated, he had only partially recovered. He made an application for voluntary retirement which was accepted by the respondents with effect from March 16, 1992. The petitioner’s grievance is that her husband went on writing to the authorities for release of the arrear, bonus, dearness allowance and other admissible dues. One such letter dated October 14, 1996 has been annexed to the writ petition as Annexure P- 2. The husband of the writ petitioner died on January 25, 1999.

The petitioner states that since the admissible dues of her deceased husband were not paid she moved a writ petition in this court in the year 2000. By an order dated July 23, 2001 the earlier writ petition was disposed of by directing the Dock Labour Board to consider the representation of the writ petitioner which was annexed to the said writ petition.

Pursuant to the said order the Deputy Chairman, Calcutta Dock Labour Board who is the respondent No.- 1 herein had given the petitioner a personal hearing and by order dated September 28, 2001 held that the representation of the petitioner claiming for unpaid dues of her deceased husband on account of provident fund, gratuity, pension, arrear, bonus and family pension was not sustainable and could not be entertained. The petitioner was, however, advised to submit an application to the Chief Accounts Officer of the Calcutta Dock Labour Board along with an attested copy of the Certificate of Death of her deceased husband for releasing the unpaid dues which were calculated in the said order, to the legal heirs of her deceased husband after necessary formalities in terms of the existing rules and guidelines of the Board in this regard.

It appears that after this order was passed the petitioner made several representations in different years to the respondents authorities. Many such letters are almost identical although their dates were different. Ultimately, the petitioner decided to challenge the order dated September 28, 2001 passed by the respondent No.- 1 by this writ petition.

The petitioner’s grievance is that she had been denied a legal right by a public authority which had abrogated her rights. The petitioner has challenged the order impugned on the ground that the respondent No.- 1 had taken a decision in a most perfunctory manner and being oblivious of the fact that a beneficial pension scheme was required to be interpreted liberally. The petitioner had interpreted the letter written by her deceased husband on October 14, 1996 as an expression of his intention to be in the pension scheme and as such it was the duty of the respondents to respond to the call of her husband and by rejecting the petitioner’s claims the respondents concerned had occasioned a serious miscarriage of justice.

A further point had been taken by the petitioner that the respondent No.- 1 instead of advising the petitioner to submit an application to the Chief Accounts Officer for releasing the unpaid dues after observing necessary formalities should himself had taken the initiative to direct his subordinate officers to make payment of such unpaid dues. This the petitioner has cited as an example of non-application of mind.

The respondents Nos.- 1 to 4 have filed an Affidavit-in-Opposition affirmed by Sri Nirmal Kumar Ghosh who was the Deputy Chairman of the Calcutta Dock Labour Board. According to the respondents the writ petition was not maintainable on the ground of delay as the same had been filed nine years after the date of exercising option for switching over from Contributory Provident Fund Scheme to the Pension Scheme the last date for which was March 31, 1997. A notification to this effect was issued by t