This High Court Single Judge Court dismissed a writ petition seeking pension benefits. The court held that an employee removed from service in 1980, who filed the application 38 years later, was not entitled to relief as the claim was barred by laches and he had slept over his rights.
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.
WP No.23401 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01-12-2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
WP No.23401 of 2019 And WMP No.23164 of 2019
G.A.Rasheed
.. Petitioner
vs.
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the second respondent letter No.9525/onthapil/mapoka/2009 dated 01.08.2018 and quash the same and consequently directing the second respondent to grant pension to the petitioner.
1/4
WP No.23401 of 2019
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Rajaram For Respondent-1 : Mr.R.P.Murugan Raja, Government Advocate. For Respondent-2 : Mr.R.Balaji
O R D E R
The petitioner was appointed as Welder in the second
respondent-Transport Corporation and removed from service on 21.05.1980.
2. The petitioner has not challenged the order of removal and
thus the punishment became final. After a lapse of about 38 years, the petitioner filed an application to pay pensionary benefits to him and the said application was rejected by the Authorities on 01.08.2018, which is under challenge in the present writ petition.
3. An employee, who was removed from service in the year
1980 is not entitled to claim the pensionary benefits as per the Rules in force and more-so, the petitioner slept over his right and filed the application after a lapse of about 38 years.
2/4
WP No.23401 of 2019
4. Therefore, the very claim of the writ petitioner is hit by laches
and at this length of time, he is not entitled for any relief as he was removed from service in the year 1980 itself.
5. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. However,
there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.
01-12-2022
Index : Yes/No. Internet : Yes/No. Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order. Svn
To
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary to Transport Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Svn
3/4
WP No.23401 of 2019
2.The Deputy Manager, Metropolitan Transport Corporation, Chennai-600 002.
WP 23401 of 2019
01-12-2022
4/4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a petitioner removed from service over 38 years ago is entitled to pensionary benefits when he slept over his right and filed an application much later.
Whether the petitioner's claim is hit by laches due to the long delay after removal from service.
G.A.Rasheed
The Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary to Transport Department
The Deputy Manager, Metropolitan Transport Corporation
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
