Raju VS Union Of India

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY
Raju – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Counsel for Petitioner: Braj Mohan Singh

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 mad

Click Here to Read the rest of this document