JUDGMENT :

Learned counsel for the parties are present.

2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-

“(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) or a writ in nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned letter no. 1209 dated 09.12.2006 (Annexure-5) issued by the District Education Officer, Sahebganj by which the services of the father of the petitioner has been terminated on the sole ground that there is discrepancy in the date of birth of petitioner’s father, and instead of date of birth recorded in the service book i.e. 21.08.1947, the date of birth of the petitioner’s father is something else, but surprisingly enough the impugned letter does not disclose the so-called actual date of birth and without any show cause, without any enquiry in a summary manner, the services of the petitioner’s father was terminated within one year of his actual retirement i.e. 31.08.2007, and as such the impugned letter cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and fit to be quashed.

(ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) or a writ in nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondent authorities for payment of post retiral benefits including the family pension, gratuity, amount of leave encashment, amount of provident fund and amount of group insurance scheme as a consequential relief to the petitioner along with statutory interest because for no fault on the part of the petitioner’s father, the post retiral benefits have not been paid till date to the family members of the petitioner’s father.”

Argument on behalf of the petitioner

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order dated 09.12.2006 has been challenged by the petitioner, being the son of the deceased employee of Minority School, by filing the present writ petition in the year 2015 as the right of the petitioner and his family members has been affected by virtue of the impugned order. If the impugned order is allowed to stand, the petitioner and his family members will remain deprived of the post death/pensionary benefits.

4. The learned counsel submits that even if there was dispute with regard to date of birth, the father of the petitioner having served the institution for 38 years was still entitled for certain benefits for the service rendered by him, but unfortunately, he expired in the year 2008. Thereafter no steps were taken by the family members to challenge the order dated 09.12.2006 and the writ petition has been filed only in the year 2015. The learned counsel has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Rushibhai Jagdishchandra Pathak Vs. Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation” decided on 18th of May, 2022 and has referred to paragraphs 9, 10, and 11 of the said judgment. He has also relied upon the judgment passed in Civil appeal No. 4100 of 2022 decided on 20th of May, 2022 in the case of “Shri M.L. Patil (Dead) through LRs versus The State of Goa and Anr.” reported in (2022) LiveLaw (SC) 537 to submit that the right to pension is a continuing right. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the impugned order has been passed without any show cause and without any departmental proceeding initiated against the father of the petitioner. Further, in the impugned order, no definite date has been mentioned regarding the date of birth and it is only alleged that the father of the petitioner had made certain interpolation in connection with date of birth.

Arguments on behalf of the respondents

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer of the petitioner on the ground of delay and laches and has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2014) 4 SCC 108 (Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and Others Vs. T. T. Murali Babu” (para 16). So far as the merits of the case is concerned, the learned counsel does not dispute that no departmen