In a petition for pension benefits denied to the widow of a deceased Zilla Parishad employee, the Court held that the 40-year delay in approaching was unreasonable and unjustified, dismissing the writ petition on grounds of inordinate delay and laches.
Writ petition dismissed on grounds of delay and 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.
1
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
Writ Petition No. 746/2007
(Smt. Kausalyabai wd/o Pundlik Gote & another VERSUS The State of Maharashtra thro. Secretary, Department of Rural Development & others )
Mr. Bhamburkar, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. G.G. Mishra, counsel for R-3 & 4. Jr. to Mr. A.B. Patil, counsel for R-5.
CORAM : D.D.SINHA AND
SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, JJ. DATE : DECEMBER 14, 2007.
Heard Mr. Bhamburkar, the learned counsel
for the petitioner and Mr. G.G. Mishra, the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3
and 4.
Following facts are not in dispute:
That, the petitioner is a widow of late Pundlik
Tukaram Gote, who was in the employment of the
Primary School run by Zilla Parishad, Akola and abandoned his service/failed to join duty with effect from 08.07.1963. The grievance of the petitioner is
that her husband was entitled to receive pension as
well as pensionary benefits, however, the same are
2
denied to her, and therefore, the present petition.
Mr. Mishra, the learned counsel for the
respondent nos.3 and 4, has contended that the petitioner has approached this Court almost after 40 years. It is not in dispute that the petitioner's husband was alive till the year 1996 i.e. more than 30 years from 08.07.1963. It is, therefore, contended that the present writ petition is hopelessly suffers from delay and laches, and therefore, it may be dismissed on this count.
We have considered the contentions canvassed by the respective counsel. It is expected from the litigant to be vigilant and conscious about their rights and are expected to approach the Court to agitate the cause at earliest. However, for some legitimate reason, even if they could not approach the Court within reasonable time, even then in a given case, the grievance of such litigant may be entertained by the Court. However, in the instant case, in view of the above referred facts, it is apparent
that the petitioner is knocking the door of the Court
3
after more than 40 years, which, according to us, is an unreasonable delay and there is no justification for such inordinate delay.
Consequently, the petition suffers from delay and laches and the same is dismissed.
JUDGE JUDGE
APTE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a petition filed over 40 years after the alleged grievance is barred by delay and laches.
Smt. Kausalyabai wd/o Pundlik Gote
The State of Maharashtra
D.D. Sinha
Vasanti A. Naik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
