Dismissed

U.N. Iyengar v. Union of India

Chhattisgarh HC2 Dec 2022WPS/5399/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a Tribunal order that barred a pension increment claim by 11 years after retirement as time-barred. The Court ruled to treat the filing as dismissed solely on grounds of delay.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed, treating the application as dismissed on the ground of delay alone.

U.N. Iyengar Vs Union of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPS No. 5399 of 2022

¶5

U.N. Iyengar S/o Late Shri P.K. Sriraman Aged About 68 Years R/o 20/578 Sriniwas Vidhya Unnagar Durga Mandir Road Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Union of India Through The Secretary Department of Railways, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi.

¶9

General Manager South Eastern Central Railway Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶10

Division Railway Manager Raipur, South Eastern Central Railway, Raipur Division, Fafadih, Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶11

Senior Divisional Personal Officer Raipur, South Eastern Central Railway Divisional Railway Manager Office, Fafadih, Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶12

Chief Personal Officer (I.R.) South Eastern Railway Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶13

---- Respondents

¶14

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr. Vikram Dixit, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Deputy Solicitor General.

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

¶17

Hon'ble Shri Sanjay Agrawal , Judge

¶18

Order on Board

¶19

Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

¶20

02.12.2022

¶21

Heard Mr. Vikram Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Deputy Solicitor General, appearing for the respondents.

¶22

This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 16.09.2021 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Circuit Sitting, Bilaspur (for short, the Tribunal) in Original Application No.203/00631/2021, dismissing the original application not only holding the same to be barred by limitation but also being devoid of merit.

¶23

¶24

The petitioner retired from service on 30.06.2010 while serving as Instructor (ST) / MDTC.

¶25

Contending that the petitioner was entitled to one increment for the purpose of pensionary benefit, a representation was filed on 20.01.2020 and the said representation having not been decided, approach was made to the Tribunal.

¶26

The Tribunal had passed the following order:

¶27

“This Original Application has been filed by applicant aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents in not granting one more increment for the purpose of pensionary benefit as the applicant stood retire on 30.06.2010.

¶28

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that this is a stale matter as the applicant stood retired in 2010.”

¶29

We have considered the matter and perused the whole Original Application. It is crystal clear that the applicant stood retire on 30.06.2010 and thereafter the applicant did not raise the issue. Now, by filing this Original Application, the applicant seeks grant of one increment on his superannuation on 30.06.2010. There is no application for condonation of delay and this Original Application has been filed after a lapse of 11 years, without explaning any delay and also without making any plausible grounds in the

¶30

¶31

Original Application. Hence, this Original Application is not only barred by limitation but also devoid of merit.

¶32

Accordingly, this Original Application is dismissed in limine at the stage of admission itself. No order as to costs.

¶33

It is contended by Mr. Dixit that the Tribunal ought not to have dismissed the application both on the ground of delay and on merit; at best, it could have dismissed the application on either of the two grounds and therefore, the order of the Tribunal is bad in law.

¶34

What is evident is that the issue of grant of one increment was raised after 10 years of retirement of the petitioner before the Tribunal, that too, without any explanation for delay. In that circumstance, the application clearly suffers from gross delay and therefore, it was not necessary for the Tribunal to comment that application was without any merit, that too, without any discussion, in one sentence. However, that will not alter the final outcome as we have also concurred with the finding of the Tribunal that the petition suffers from gross delay in agitating the issue. We, however, observe that the application before the Tribunal shall be treated to have been dismissed on the ground of delay alone.

¶35

In that view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶36

Sd/Sd/- (Arup Kumar Goswami) (Sanjay Agrawal ) Chief Justice Judge

¶37

Hem

U.N. Iyengar v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

U.N. Iyengar v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Shamsher Singh Vs General Manager

Narbadia Bai Vs Manharan Srivas

Harishankar Joshi Vs Shri M.n. Rajulkar

Dr. Ruchir Tyagi Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Dr. Aman Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Abhishek Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh