Back
SURESH KUMAR KAIT, NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
Pradeep Kumar Agarwal – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT (Oral)
1. Vide the present petition, petitioner is seeking directions to respondents to pay an interest @ 18% per annum to petitioner over the pensionary benefits w.e.f. 21.02.2023 till realization, to pay an amount of Rs.5 lacs in form of monetary compensation and Rs.2 lacs towards legal expenses borne by the petitioner.
2. It is not in dispute that petitioner has retired from service on 31.08.1986 and the since pensionary benefits were not granted by the respondents, he filed C.W. No. 7273/1999 which was disposed of vide order dated 15.09.2000 observing as under:
"Learned counsel for the respondents, on instructions from Lt.Ruby Singh, who is present in Court, states that the deficiency in the pensionable service has been condoned and the forms have already been sent and that the petitioner would get his pension in accordance with the Rules.
In view of the above statement, the petition does not survive and the same is dismissed as not surviving. However, the petitioner will be at liberty to approach this Court for revival of this petition if the communication received by him is contrary to the statement made by the counsel for the respondents.
3. It is further not in di
Delay and laches can impact the admissibility of a petition, especially when seeking relief related to pension release.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
