Petitioner sought mandamus for release of post-retiral dues resigned in 1990. Court dismissed the petition solely due to 32-year delay, holding the explanation regarding illness inadequate under the principle of laches.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 33
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 20735 of 2022
Petitioner :- Shashi Kant Singh Yadav Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prabhat Kumar Singh,Jyoti Prakash Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Yadvendra Pratap Singh
Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.
Heard Sri Prabhat Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Yadvendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the Union of India.
By means of the instant writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.3 to ensure the release of post retiral dues of the petitioner.
A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned Standing Counsel that from the own showing of the petitioner it has been pleaded in paragraph 7 of the petition that he had tendered his resignation on 17.6.1990, which was duly accepted. Thereafter, in paragraph 13 and 14 of the petition, an endeavour has been made to cover the laches in filing the petition for seeking post retiral dues in respect of a cause of action which occurred in the year 1990 by filing this petition in the month of December, 2022. It is urged that contents of paragraph 13 and 14 are completely bereft of any reasonable explanation nor the document annexed to substantiate indicates the averment made in the said paragraphs. The laches have been explained in para13, which reads as under:-
"13. That unfortunately the petitioner was fell seriously ill and not even this he was gone mentally out of order and after a long run treatment he restored back and become enable to discern the right and wrong. It is thereafter the wife of the petitioner made request by moving representation for release of amount due to be paid to the petitioner after his retirement but no avail."
Having considered the aforesaid submission as well as from the perusal of material on record, this Court finds that paragraph 13 and 14 which has been indicated to cover the laches, does not indicate adequate explanation for considering the plea in the nature of mandamus, after about 32 years.
Having considered the aforesaid, noticing the delay in filing the
petition is about 32 years. It is no doubt true that there is no limitation provided for filing the petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. However, the concept of explanation of laches has now gained acceptance as an important aspect which may permit the Court to not accept or entertain the petition where the latches has not been adequately explained. The Apex Court in the case of Printers Mysore Ltd. Vs. M. A. Rasheed and others (2004) 4 SCC 460 and Northern India Glass Industries Vs. Jaswant Singh and other AIR 2003 SC 234 has considered the issue of laches and applying the aforesaid to the facts of the instant case and noticing the explanation which has been recorded hereinabove.
This Court is not satisfied as there is no cogent explanation for the delay. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed solely on the ground of being barred by laches.
Order Date :- 2.2.2023 SP
Digitally signed by :- SALIM PRAVEJ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition seeking release of post-retiral dues after 32 years can be entertained despite Article 226 having no limitation period due to laches.
Whether the petitioner's explanation for the 32-year delay in filing the petition is cogent and adequate.
Whether the principle of laches bars the present writ petition.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Printers Mysore Ltd. Vs. M. A. Rasheed and othersReferred¶10
Printers Mysore Ltd. Vs. M. A. Rasheed and others (2004) 4 SCC 460 · Who else cites this
Northern India Glass Industries Vs. Jaswant Singh and otherReferred¶10
Northern India Glass Industries Vs. Jaswant Singh and other AIR 2003 SC 234 · Who else cites this
Shashi Kant Singh Yadav
Union Of India
Jaspreet Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
