The Court dismissed the widow's writ petition seeking pension and family pension. The Court held the claim was barred by delay and laches due to a 1996 notice and estoppel regarding prior receipt of gratuity and provident fund dues.
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.
%
6th December, 2016
MRS. SHOBHA KAUR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Umesh Singh, Adv.
versus
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. O.P.Gaggar, Adv.
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
India, petitioner Mrs. Shobha Kaur, widow of the late employee Sh. Prithvi Paul Singh, seeks the relief for being granted pension to her late husband and also consequent family pension to the petitioner. Petitioner also prayed that petitioner be granted interest on account of late payment of the terminal benefits.
granted leave to visit USA in the year 1991. The leave was up to 24.12.1991 whereafter the petitioner’s husband returned to India but again
Page 1 of 9
W.P. (C) 11536/2016
went back to USA on 19.2.1992 on the ground that petitioner’s mother had suffered a fracture in her hip bone. Petitioner’s husband thus went to USA on 19.2.1992 without getting any leave sanctioned and the petitioner claims that the leave applications were “mercilessly rejected” by the employer vide letters dated 20.4.1992 and 2.6.1992. Petitioner then pleads that petitioner’s husband submitted his resignation to the bank on 23.10.1992 and petitioner’s husband thereafter kept on waiting for his terminal benefits but no intimation was received by the petitioner’s husband of non-acceptance of his resignation. The petitioner’s husband thereafter was removed from service vide order dated 15.3.1996 on account of continuous unauthorized absence from the office. Petitioner in this writ petition has pleaded that the petitioner’s husband never came to know of the order of removal from services dated 15.3.1996. Petitioner further pleads that the pension scheme came into force by the respondent no.1/employer/Central Bank of India in 1995 and petitioner’s husband was never informed that he should exercise his option for pension. With these averments the writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-
“PRAYER
In view of the above said facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner humbly prays that this Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ in favour of the petitioner and:
A) the Petitioner be awarded Pension for her Husband from the first date of its implementation, as the same shall be subsequent to the deemed date of
Page 2 of 9
W.P. (C) 11536/2016
acceptance (of his Resignation dated 23.10.1992), the same being 23.01.1993 i.e. 3 months after the date of his Resignation dated 23.10.1992 in view of Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order in Civil Appeal nos of 2014 & SLP(c) no. 36909 of 2012, passed on 17.12.2014 in the case of SHASHI KALA DEVI VS. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA & OTHERS , as against his eligibility to earn Pension from the date of his normal Superannuation on 30.11.2000, as per Ground (ii) as above, as the same is certainly be more beneficial to the Petitioner.
B) That in addition to the Pension as above under (A), the petitioner be paid encashment of Ordinary Leave standing to petitioner’s husband’s credit on 24.12.1991, as no Leave has been allowed & debited after the said date.
C) That in addition to (A) & (B) in view of the Gross violation of its own Rules & Regulations, the Bank be directed to pay interest at Fixed Deposit rates on delayed payments of Terminal Benefits & also on amount payable due to encashment of leave to his credit as on 24.12.1991 i.e. the date after which he was treated on loss of pay, along with interest on amounts due under Pension payable to him from the date of its implementation.
D) As the Petitioner’s Husband has expired on 14.02.2016, the Petitioner in addition to above reliefs is also entitled to Family Pension from the date of the death of her Husband i.e from 14.02.2016.
E) The respondent may also be directed to pay the consequential benefits along with interests thereon at the rate of fixed deposit since due date and till the realization to the petitioner;
F) Any other order or relief which the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper may also be passed in favour of the Petitioner for which he shall ever remain obliged.”
of Employers Contribution as PF and Group Insurance Claim and which
Page 3 of 9
W.P. (C) 11536/2016
were given to the petitioner way back around the years 1996-1997. This is so stated in response to the RTI queries of the petitioners whereby the
respondent no.1/employer responded to various queries of the petitioner
vide letter of the employer dated 30.7.2014 as under:-
“CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA
CENTRAL TO YOU SINCE 1911
NODAL REGIONAL OFFICE, DELHI (SOUTH) C.O.: CHANDER MUKHI, NARIMAN POINT,
MUMBAI-400021
RO(SOUTH): LAW RTI-56:2014:158 Date: 30.07.2014 SPEED POST
Shri P.P.Singh Address A-16, Green Park Extension, New Delhi-110016
Reg: Your application under Right to Information Act, 2005
Vide your letter dated 10.07.2012, you have preferred a second appeal to Central Information Commission wherein it is stated that you were not satisfied with the reply of CPIO and Appellate Authority of the information sought by you under Right to Information Act, 2005.
On which CIC has passed his order dated 07.07.2014 received by us on 11.11.2014, “to provide to the appellant, within 3 weeks of this order or sworn affidavit if information cannot be traced out inspite of a renewed search”.
As per instructions we have made thorough search in the matter and we lay our hands on following records only.
Therefore in compliance of the order of CIC we are furnishing the point wise reply as under:
Page 4 of 9
W.P. (C) 11536/2016
In view of above, the orders of CIC have been duly complied with.
Sd/(M.K.Gaind) SENIOR REGIONAL MANAGER/PIO” (underlining added)
Page 5 of 9
W.P. (C) 11536/2016
as under:-
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA Regional Office-A (South) ROA: PRS:96-97:4400 Dated: 10-12-1996 Shri Prithvi Paul Singh 2433/8, Barleys Club Drive ORLANDO FLORIDA-32837 U.S.A. Reg: Request for release of your PF/Gratuity & Pension.
Page 6 of 9
W.P. (C) 11536/2016
Ref: Your letter dated 28-11-96.
In the above context, this is to inform you that papers for settlement of your Terminal Dues PF, Gratuity and Group Insurance are already in the process and you may keep in touch with B/o Mehrauli for payment of the same.
Further please note that last date for submission of pension option form was 25th January 1996 and as you have not submitted your pension option form within the stipulated date, your request for pension cannot be considered at this stage. Please be advised accordingly.
Sd/-
(V.B. MATHUR) ASST. REGIONAL MANAGER”
“ Delay/Laches
52. In the very first appeal, the respondent filed Writ Petition on 11-11-2005 claiming relief under the Notification dated 6-10-1989 w.e.f. 1-1-1986 without furnishing any explanation for such inordinate delay and on laches on her part. Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963, makes it obligatory on the part of the court to dismiss the suit or appeal if made after the prescribed period even
Page 7 of 9
W.P. (C) 11536/2016
though the limitation is not set up as a defence and there is no plea to raise the issue of limitation even at the appellate stage because in some of the cases it may go to the root of the matter. (See Lachhmi Sewak Sahu v. Ram Rup Sahu and Kamlesh Babu v. Lajpat Rai Sharma. )
54. This Court has consistently rejected the contention that a petition should be considered ignoring the delay and laches in case the petitioner approaches the Court after coming to know of the relief granted by the Court in a similar case as the same cannot furnish a proper explanation for delay and laches. A litigant cannot wake up from deep slumber and claim impetus from the judgment in cases where some diligent person had approached the Court within a reasonable time. (See Rup Diamonds v. Union of India, State of Karnataka v. S.M. Kotrayya and Jagdish Lal v. State of Haryana. )”
(underlining added)
once the petitioner was removed from services vide order dated 15.3.1996 which has become final on account of the same not being challenged, the effect of removal of service will disentitle the petitioner to the claim of pension.
Page 8 of 9
W.P. (C) 11536/2016
the year 1996. In fact in the years 1996/1997 the petitioner’s husband received
all the Provident Fund benefits and utilized the same and thus the petitioner and her husband are estopped from claiming pension. The writ petition is barred by delay and laches as the petitioner’s husband did not seek enforcement of the pension scheme by impugning the order dated 10.12.1996 of the respondent no.1/employer. Further though there is no ground to hold that there was a delay in release of terminal benefits to the petitioner, even for the sake of arguments assuming there is a delay, interest today cannot be claimed in the year 2016, well beyond the period of limitation, for payments made to the petitioner’s husband in the years 1996 and 1997.
DECEMBER 06, 2016/ ib
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
Page 9 of 9
W.P. (C) 11536/2016
3 issues framed by the court
Whether petitioner's claim for pension and family pension is barred by delay and laches given the 1996 notice regarding pension option.
Whether petitioner is estopped from claiming pension due to prior receipt of Provident Fund benefits substituted for pension.
Whether the writ petition directed at removal from service consequences filed in 2016 is maintainable.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Civil Appeal nos of 2014 & SLP(c) no. 36909 of 2012Referred¶21
Shashi Kala Devi vs. Central Bank of India & OthersReferred¶21
State of Orissa and Another Vs. Mamata Mohanty (2011) 3 SCC 436Applied¶78
Lachhmi Sewak Sahu v. Ram Rup SahuReferred¶83
Kamlesh Babu v. Lajpat Rai SharmaReferred¶83
Rup Diamonds v. Union of IndiaReferred¶85
State of Karnataka v. S.M. KotrayyaReferred¶85
Jagdish Lal v. State of HaryanaReferred¶85
Mrs. Shobha Kaur
Central Bank of India & Anr.
Valmiki J. Mehta
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
