Delay in pursuing pension revision claims can bar relief due to laches, emphasizing the need for timely action to enforce rights.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Jagmohan Bansal, J. (ORAL)

The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking directions to respondents to revise his pension as per last drawn pay.

2. The petitioner joined United India Insurance Company Limited as Development Officer on 27.06.1988 and he was regularized on 12.12.1990. He retired on 31.03.2013 and at that point of time, his basic salary was revised from Rs. 29,395/- to Rs. 56,060/- per month. His pension was initially fixed at Rs. 11,135+DA per month.

3. As per petitioner, the correct amount of his pay was Rs. 56,060/- and respondent has fixed his pension without considering correct amount of last drawn pay. The petitioner served upon respondent legal notice dated 25.02.2017 which was answered by respondent vide letter dated 30.08.2017. The petitioner again served legal notice upon respondent on 10.08.2023 which has been answered vide communication dated 24.08.2023.

4. The petitioner retired in 2013 and at that point of time, his pension was fixed. As per petitioner, the respondent had fixed incorrect amount of his pension. He served notice upon respondent in July, 2017 which was answered in August' 2017. He was paid pension arrears. The petitioner remained silent from 2017 to 2023 and again served legal notice dated 10.08.2023.

5. On being pointed out that respondent decided legal notice in 2017 and thereafter petitioner remained silent till 2023, counsel for the petitioner submits that pension is a recurring cause, thus, he can approach Authorities as well Court for revision of pension at any point of time.

6. No hard-and-fast rule can be laid down as to when the High Court should refuse to exercise its jurisdiction in favour of a party who moves it after considerable delay and is otherwise guilty of laches. Discretion must be exercised judiciously and reasonably. In the event that the claim made by the applicant is legally sustainable, delay should be condoned. Where illegality is manifest, cannot be sustained on the sole ground of laches. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. State cannot deprive vested right because of a non-deliberate delay.

7. A Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 04.04.2018 in Kartar Singh v. Managing Director, HVPNL and others, CWP No.26962 of 2015, after noticing various judgments of Apex Court has dismissed similar petition on the ground that writ petition has been filed after a long time from the date of retirement.

8. A Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.05.2015 in Sandeep Kharab v. State of Haryana and others, CWP No.5965 of 2011; order dated 04.09.2012 in Bal Krishan v. State of Punjab and others, CWP No. 18498 of 2011 and order 29.11.2012 in Tarsem Pal v. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others, CWP No. 13965 of 2010 has dismissed petitions on the ground that writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked at the will and convenience of the litigant. Anyone who claims rights must be vigilant and he must enforce his rights within reasonable time.

9. In Union of India v. N. Murugesan, (2022) 2 SCC 25, court has observed that a neglect on the part of a party to do an act which law requires must stand in his way for getting the relief or remedy. The Court laid down two essential factors i.e. first, the length of the delay and second, the developments during the intervening period. Delay in availing the remedy would amount to waiver of such right. Relevant extracts of the judgment read as:

"20. The principles governing delay, laches, and acquiescence are overlapping and interconnected on many occasions. However, they have their distinct characters and distinct elements. One can say that delay is the genus to which laches and acquiescence are species. Similarly, laches might be called a genus to a species by name acquiescence. However, there may be a case where acquiescence is involved, bu