Back
2005 Supreme(P&H) 520
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
S.S.Nijjar and M.M.Aggarwal JJ.
Mul Singh (Ex.Sigmn)
Versus
Union Of India
Civil Writ Petition No. 6289 of 2005,
Decided On : APRIL 26, 2005
The importance of expeditiously approaching the court for relief and the impact of delay and latches on the entitlement to pension benefits.
Headnote:
Delay and Latches - Disability Pension - Pension Regulations 1961, Part-I, para 132, 173 - The court held that the petitioner's delay in approaching the court for redressal of grievances deprived him of the relief legally due. The court cited the Pension Regulations 1961, emphasizing the eligibility criteria for service pension and disability elements. The court also referred to a Supreme Court judgment highlighting the importance of expeditiously approaching the court for relief, ultimately dismissing the writ petition due to delay and latches.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a former Indian Army member, sought disability pension after suffering a head injury during World War II. However, his request was repeatedly denied due to delays in approaching the court for redressal of grievances.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's inordinate delay in seeking relief barred him from obtaining the disability pension. Citing a Supreme Court judgment, the court emphasized the importance of expeditiously approaching the court for relief and dismissed the writ petition.
Issues: Delay in seeking relief, eligibility for disability pension, destruction of service and medical documents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's delay in seeking relief deprived him of the legally due pension benefits. The court emphasized the importance of expeditiously approaching the court for relief, citing a Supreme Court judgment.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed due to delay and latches, and no relief was granted to the petitioner.
S.S.Nijjar, J.
1. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the paper-book.
2. The petitioner was enrolled in Signal Corps of the Indian Army on 4.7.1941. According to the petitioner whilst he was serving in Burma in World War II, he suffered a head injury. On 13.7.5944, he was medically boarded out. For the first time on 11.3.1992, the petitioner put in a request for the grant of disability pension. This request was turned down on 31.8.1992. It was observed as follows:-
"1. Refer to your petition dated 3.8.1992.
2. It is seen from the Long Roll held in this Office that your all services and medical documents have been destroyed by burning after expiry of stipulated period of retention being non-pensionable documents as you were not granted any pension at the time of your discharge. Hence, this office is unable to take any action on your petition at this belated stage."
3. Thereafter, the petitioner waited for another six years and served a legal notice some time in the year 1998. This legal notice of the petitioner was responded to by the respondents on 21.6.1999. It was observed as follows:-
"3. It is reiterated that as per Rule 132 of Pension Regulations 1961, Part-I, Personnel who rendered minimum 15 years service shall be entitled for grant of service pension and as per Rule 173 of Pension Regulation 1961, Part-I, personnel who have rendered minimum 10 years shall be eligible for disability elements. Since your client has served only for 3 years and his disability was not considered attributable to military service, he is not eligible for any type of pension."
4. Thereafter the petitioner again kept silent for more than five years and served another legal notice on 5.11.2004. By letter dated 18.12.2004, the petitioner was again informed that the complete service and medical documents has been destroyed by burning under the provisions of para 595 of Regulations for the Army, 1987 (Revised). The earlier reasons stated for rejection of the claim of the petitioner were reiterated. The petitioner thereafter sent a reminder on 20.1.2005. The respondents have responded to the reminder on 15.2.2005 and stated that it would not be possible to consider the claim of the petitioner, after an inordinate delay of 60 years.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that mere delay in approaching the Court for redressal of his grievances would not deprive the petitioner of the relief which is legally due. In support of the submission, the learned counsel has relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Sardara Singh V/s. Union of India, 1992 6 SLR 683. In the aforesaid case, the Division Bench observed that the petitioner had been regularly representing to the authorities. His claim had been declined only on the ground that the disability was not attributable to or aggravated by military service. On examination of the record, the Division Bench found the aforesaid reason to be false. In the present case, there is absolutely no explanation as to why the petitioner kept silent for a period of 48 years before making the first representation.
6. Mr. Grewal, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the claim of the petitioner can be restricted from the date on which the petitioner made the first request for the grant of disability pension. We are unable to accept the aforesaid submission also. As noticed above, the petitioner was medically boarded out of Army on 13.7.1944. He made his first request for the grant of disability pension on 11.3.1992. The respondents sent a reply on 31.8.1992 giving cogent reasons as to why the pension could not be granted to the petitioner. It had been stated that all the service and medical documents of the petitioner had been destroyed by burning after expiry of stipulated period. Thereafter, the petitioner waited for over six years before sending another legal notice on 5.11.2004. Even this legal notice was replied by the resp
