Honble CHAUHAN, J. – The instant petition has been filed claiming the benefit of pension. Petitioner claims that he was appointed as Sanitary Inspector on 10.7.1941 in the erstwhile State of Mewar in the then Udaipur Municipality. After the re- organisation of the States and commencement of the Rajasthan Service Rules 1951, the services of the petitioner were governed by the said rules. Petitioner retired long back and claimed the benefit of pension. Vide order dt. 10.3.76 contained in Annex. 9 to this writ petition, petitioner was informed that he was not entitled for pension. Petitioner filed the instant petition in 1988 for seeking relief ofpension.

(2). Learned counsel for the respondents has raised the plea of delay and laches on the part of the petitioner as a preliminary objection.

(3). Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the law of limitation does not apply in writ jurisdiction and even if it applies the petitioner was makingrepeated representations before the respondents, which furnish the explanation of delay and laches. The matter is heard only on preliminary objection. The instant petition raises three main questions:

i. Whether a writ court should entertain a stale claim?

ii. Whether repeated representations, inspite of rejection of the similar representation earlier, furnish explanation for delay and laches?

iii. Whether the law of limitation is attracted in writ jurisdiction?

(4). So far as the first issue is concerned, in Aflatoon vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi (1), the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court has observed that a stale claim cannot be entertained in writ jurisdiction. A similar view was taken by the Supreme Courtin State of Mysore vs. V.K. Kangan (2), wherein it was held that the party must approach the Court within reasonable time. Another Constitution Bench of the Apex Court considered this aspect in M/s. Tilok Chand Moti Chand and Others vs. H.B. Munshi (3), and held that the petition filed at a belated stage cannot and should not be entertained otherwise it would harm the innocent parties, whose rights haveemerged because of delay on the part of the person approaching the court. In the case of R.S. Deodhar vs. State of Maharashtra (4), the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court observed as under :

``It may also be noted that the principle on which the courts proceed in refusing relief to the petitioner on grounds of laches or delay is that the rights which have accrued to others by reason of the delay in filing the position should not be allowed to be disturbed unless there a reasonable explanation for the delay.

(5). Similarly, in K.R. Mudgal vs. R.P. Singh (5), the Apex Court followed its earlier judgment in R.S. Maxhi vs. L.M. Menan (6), wherein the Court held that thepetition should be rejected on preliminary ground of delay and laches, inasmuch as it seeks to disrupt the vested rights, accrued to a large number of persons during the intervening period. Thus, in view of the above, my conclusion is that court should not entertain a stale claim.

(6). On the second issue, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Ravi-ndra Nath Bose vs. Union of India (7), observed as under :

``It could not have been the intention that this Court would go into stale demands after a lapse of years........But there is a limit to the time which can be considered reasonable for making representation.....If the government has turned down one representation, the making of another representation on similar lines would not unable the petitioners to explain the delay.

(7). The aforesaid judgment in the case of Ravindra Nath Bose was followed by the Supreme court in State of Orissa vs. Shri Pyarimohan Samontaray and Ors. (8) and G.C. Gupta vs. N.K. Pandey and Ors. (9) wherein after rejection of the claim, petitioners filed another representation, which was also rejected. Then third and fourth representations were also made and the same had also been rejected. The Honble Apex Court rejected the contention that as the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document