Dhaneshwari Devi vs State of Uttarakhand and Others

SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA, J.

The petitioner is a widow.

The case of the petitioner is that her husband who was appointed as a Peon in a work charge establishment with the respondents as back as on

01.03.1975. He was brought into a regular establishment on 09.07.1998. Ultimately, the husband of the petitioner has attained the age of

superannuation on 31.01.2007 and he retired from the services.

The case of the petitioner is that the husband of the petitioner had submitted a representation on 04.06.2010, after almost three and a half years of

retirement praying for grant of pension and gratuity, but the representation of the petitioner’s husband was not considered and decided.

The precise argument of the petitioner is that the pensionary benefits and gratuity be calculated based on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court

in Habib Khan’s case and bunch of cases as decided by this Court on 26.04.2018, after including the services rendered in the work charge

establishment, this representation according to the petitioner remain pending. What is surprisingly is that this representation as claimed to have been

submitted by the petitioner does not bear any endorsement of receipt of the office of the respondents. Furthermore, even the averments as made in

the writ petition, there is no specific averments made by the petitioner as to mode and manner in which the representation dated 04.06.2010 was

served upon the respondents.

Even, it is presumed and taken to be true that late husband of the petitioner did submit his representation on 04.06.2010. There is yet again no

material on record that even after submission of representation on 04.06.2010, and thereafter, after the death of the husband of the petitioner in the

year 2014, any steps was taken by the late husband himself or the petitioner herself for getting her grievances redressed as claimed by her husband

said to have been taken on 04.06.2010. Still the matter was put to slumber and even after filing of the representation dated 04.06.2010, the petitioner

or her late husband has not invoked the writ jurisdiction or a claim before any Competent Court to get the rights pertaining to the settlement of post

retiral dues after including the period of work charge establishment.

Even this writ petition which has been filed on 15.06.2018, carrying an averment of service of representation dated 04.06.2010 has been filed almost

after eight years at a highly belated stage and it cannot be ruled out that the basis of filing of this writ petition at a highly belated stage almost after 11

years from the date of retirement of petitioner’s husband who retired on 31.01.2007, it is only after the adjudication made by the Hon’ble

Apex Court in Habib Khan’s case dated 23.08.2017, as well as, after the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in bunch of

Special Appeal No.494 of 2017, State of Uttarakhand & Another vs. Brahm Pal Singh, as decided on 26.04.2018. At this stage, no interference would

be called for in the writ petition being highly belated because there are catena of judgments that when a redressal is sought of a grievance at a highly

belated stage and in an event, an adjudication is made after granting the benefit of laches which entails upon a financial implications on the State’s

Exchequer. the Court should be slow in entertaining petitions. The delay in invoking the writ jurisdiction has to be construed strictly, as such, this Court

does not find any merit in the present writ petition.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed on the ground of laches. No other argument has been raised by the petitioner. However, there would be

not order as to costs.