The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the doctrine of delay and laches in service-related disputes, emphasizing the importance of timely pursuit of claims and the exceptions to the rule of delay and laches in cases of continuing wrongs.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Braj Mohan Singh, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Dinesh Chand Tripathi, Advocate for respondents.

2. Petitioner is agitating his claim for pensionary benefits after a period of more than 17 years. Petitioner was compulsorily retired in pursuance of departmental proceedings vide order dated 26.02.2005 and appeal thereagainst was also dismissed in 2006.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is a labour, therefore, he is not able to understand the contents of letter as well as his right and he was under impression that issue of pensionary benefits were under consideration. He further submits that on 23.02.2019 a letter was communicated whereby it was informed that Appellate Authority has rejected his appeal on 08.04.2006, however, petitioner was under impression that his claim was still under consideration as referred in letter dated 30.11.2006.

4. Right of pension is a continuing right, however, the issue, whether delay of about 17 years could be condoned in the light of submission that petitioner was a labour and he was under bona fide impression that his claim was under consideration, has to be considered in the light of averments made in writ petition. In this regard relevant averments are in paras 6 and 9 of the writ petition, which are reproduced as under:

“6. That it is further submitted that the petitioner is a labour class therefore he is not able to know English language and he was raising his grievance before the respondent no. 2 through representation in Hindi but respondent no. 2 issued a letter dated 23.02.2019 to the petitioner. The language of the letter was in English therefore petitioner was unable to know the contents of the letter while he was in a impression that the matter with regard to the pension of the petitioner is being proceeded but when he show the letter to some other English knowing person then he came to know the letter have no recital with regard to the pension of the petitioner in the month of May 2nd week 2022.

The true copy of the letter dated 23.02.2019 is being filed herewith and marked as annexure no. 2 of this writ petition.”

“9. That is is further submitted that the matter is relating to the pension of the petitioner therefore request to decided the representation earliest because due to delay the petitioner is being faced so much financial crisis while under the law he is entitled of pension.”

5. There is no letter or any communication on record to show that petitioner was vigilant towards his right after he was compulsorily retired in the year 2005 till he received a letter dated 23.02.2019. Even after aforesaid letter there is only one communication which is in the form of representation and 21.05.2022. The petition is absolutely silent on the aspect of delay and in this regard it is relevant to reproduce paras 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 of a recent judgment of Apex Court in Rushibhai Jagdishbhai Pathak vs. Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 641, as under:

“9. The doctrine of delay and laches, or for that matter statutes of limitation, are considered to be statutes of repose and statutes of peace, though some contrary opinions have been expressed. The courts have expressed the view that the law of limitation rests on the foundations of greater public interest for three reasons, namely, (a) that long dormant claims have more of cruelty than justice in them; (b) that a defendant might have lost the evidence to disapprove a stale claim; and (iii) that persons with good causes of action (who are able to enforce them) should pursue them with reasonable diligence.Equally, change in de facto position or character, creation of third party rights over a period of time, waiver, acquiesce, and need to ensure certitude in dealings, are equitable public policy considerations why period of limitation is prescribed by law. Law of limitation does not apply to writ See Nav Rattanmal and Others v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1961 SC 1704 State of Kerala