Ram Sajiwan vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

By means of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 8th December, 2008 (Annexure No. 1) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, respondent No. 3 whereby the Tribunal had declined to grant condonation of delay in filing Original Application No. 1231 of 2007 on the ground that no ground for condoning the delay has been made out.

We have heard Sri Sudama Ram, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Govind Saran, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.

We have perused the averments made in the writ petition with annexures filed in the writ petition.

Sri Sudama Ram, learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner was declared medically unfit and was discharged from service on 29th April, 1997. However, retiral benefits had not been given to the petitioner. The petitioner had made several representations of which the last representation was made on 13th April, 2006. According to the petitioner, denial of invalid pension is a recurring cause of action and the Tribunal had misdirected itself in not condoning the delay in filing the original application. He further submitted that the petitioner, after having been paralyzed in the year 1997, was confined to bed for a pretty long time and therefore, the petitioner moved a delay condonation application before the authority concerned. He further submitted that a liberal view ought to have been taken in condoning the delay and thus, the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set-aside.

He has relied upon the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of S.K. Mastan Bee v. General Manager, South Central Railway and Anr. reported in 2003 1 E.S.C. 17, a decision of the learned Single Judge of Delhi High Court in the case of Ajit Singh v. Union of India and Ors. 2002 2 AISLJ 188, a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of General Manager, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad, A.P. and Anr. v. Shaik Abdul Khader and Ors. 2004 2 ATJ 23 and of the Delhi High Court in the case of Major Rajender Singh v. Union of India and Ors. 2003 1 AISLJ 1.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the various pleas advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. We find that it is not in dispute that the petitioner was declared unfit and discharged from service on 29th April, 1997 and at that time he was paid a sum of Rs. 40,000/- as final settlement, which he accepted without any demur or protest .

After a long period i.e. for more than nine years, he made a representation before the concerned authorities on 13th April, 2006 raising claim of pension and his retiral benefits. In the representation dated 13th April, 2006 which has been filed along with writ petition as per original application filed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition, even though in the heading it has been mentioned as "despite repeated representations but no reply", in the body of the representation no such reference of the representation having been made as earlier has been given. Only mention is that the petitioner was confined to bed. We, therefore, do not accept the claim of the petitioner that he has made repeated representations for claiming retiral benefit, after his discharge from service.

The concerned authorities had passed the order on the representation of the petitioner on the same day giving reasons as to why he is not entitled for pension. The original application challenging before the Tribunal was filed sometimes in the month of December, 2007 i.e. after more than one and a half years of the passing of the order along with a prayer for condoning the delay in filing the original application before the Tribunal in the year 2007, on medical ground.

We may mention here that as the petitioner had accepted a sum of Rs. 40,000/- at the time of discharge without any demur or protest in the year 1997 itself and there is no provision for making representation and merely because the petitioner had made representation in the year 2006 and that too after a long period of about nine years would not extend, the period of limitation or would give a new cause of action to the petitioner. In the case of S.K. Mastan Bee (supra), the Apex Court was considering a case of grant of family pension to an illiterate widow and held that denial of her right to family pension is amounting to a violation of the guarantee assured under Article 21 of the Constitution. In the present case the petitioner was discharged from service in 1997 and kept quiet after accepting the amount for a pretty long time of nine years. We cannot say that it amounted violation under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Delhi High Court in the case of Ajit Singh (supra) had held that pension a continuous benefit and is a recurring cause. The fact was that in that case, the petitioner was entitled for pension and i.e., the reason why the Court had held to be recurring cause of action as the petitioner was illegally denied the claim. No such fact exists in the present.

The case of Shaikh Abdul Khader (supra) is on the issue of counting the period of temporary status till regularization for the purpose of pension and half of the service before the period of temporary status. This case does not touch the issue raised in the present writ petition.

In the case of Major Rajender Singh (supra) before the Delhi High Court the petitioner therein had filed the writ petition for declaration of order of termination of the petitioner''s service without giving show-cause notice as void ab initio, reinstatement of the petitioner with consequential benefits and direction of payment of pro rata pensionary benefits to the petitioner and the Delhi High Court had held that as the order of termination has been found illegal and therefore, it was held that the payment of pension like salary is a continuous cause so limitation does not apply. Whereas in the present case the petitioner had accepted the payment of the entire amount on discharge without any demur or protest. He is not entitled for pension after a long time of nine years. The delay has not been explained and therefore, the Tribunal cannot be said to have committed any error of law.

The writ petition is dismissed in limine.