Dismissed

Chameli Devi v. The Union Of India and Ors.

Patna HC12 May 2016CWJC/438/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a Tribunal order that rejected a service dispute application for delay. The court held the application filed in 2012 regarding a 1990 incident was barred by limitation despite the petitioner's claim of 2009 RTI-based knowledge. However, it directed the railway authorities to consider a representation regarding pending dues.

What did the court decide?

Writ application dismissed on grounds of delay and laches; leave granted to file representation for unpaid dues.

Chameli Devi Vs The Union Of India and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.438 of 2015

¶3

=========================================================== Chameli Devi, Wife of Late Suresh Malik, Ex-Safaiwala under the C.D.O., Barauni, resident of village- Dariapur, P.O. & Police Station- Hathidah, DistrictPatna (Bihar). .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The Union of India through General Manager, E.C. Railway, Hajipur, Vaishali. 2. The Divisional Railway Manager, E.C. Railway, Sonepur. 3. The Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer, (C & W), E.C. Railway, Sonepur. 4. The D.R.M. (P.), E.C. Railway, Sonepur. 5. The Carriage Depot Officer, E.C. Railway, Barauni (Begusarai). .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Irshad Ahmad Khan, Advocate Mr. Ram Bilash Prasad, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Bijoy Kumar Sinha, Advocate =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA And HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH

¶4

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA)

¶5

Date: 12-05-2016

¶6

The challenge in the present writ application is to an order dated 5^th September, 2012 passed in O.A. No. 763 of 2012 with M.A. No. 400 of 2012, whereby an original application filed by the petitioner was dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.

¶7

The challenge is also to an order passed in review application dated 27^th August, 2013 whereby the review of the said order was dismissed.

¶8

The husband of the appellant was working as Safai Karamchari. As per the averments made in the original application, he

¶9

Patna High Court CWJC No.438 of 2015 dt.12-05-2016

¶10

2/3

¶11

fell sick on 10.11.1990 and was unable to perform his duties. He died in 2009. The assertion of the petitioner that she came to know about the order dated 26^th February, 1992 /12th March, 1992 of dismissal/removal of her husband only when she got information under the Right to Information Act in the year 2010. It is thereafter, the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal which has been dismissed on the ground that even after getting information under the Right to Information Act, the petitioner has waited for more than two years. Therefore, there is no cause for condonation of delay.

¶12

The stand of the petitioner is that she was not aware of the fact that services of her husband were terminated. Such stand cannot be believed. As per the petitioner, her husband did not go on duty after 1990. Therefore, for almost 20 years there was no grievance raised by the petitioner or by her husband in respect of joining or payment of salary or any other step which may show that her husband asserted his right as an employee of the respondents.

¶13

In view thereof, we do not find any error passed by the learned Tribunal that the Original Application filed in the year 2012 suffers from delay and is barred by limitation. The writ application is, thus, dismissed.

¶14

However, learned counsel for the petitioner states that her husband had not been paid dues for the period he was working in the

¶15

Patna High Court CWJC No.438 of 2015 dt.12-05-2016

¶16

3/3

¶17

Railways. If that be so, the petitioner may submit a representation which shall be considered by the respondents in accordance with law expeditiously.

¶18

(Hemant Gupta, J.)

¶19

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)

¶20

Sunil/-

¶21

AFR/NAFR CAV DATE N. A. Uploading Date 17.05.2016 Transmission Date

Chameli Devi v. The Union Of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chameli Devi v. The Union Of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Awadhesh Kumar Pathak Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Mritunjay Kumar Vs The Union Of India and Ors.

The Union Of India and Ors. Vs Ajit Kumar Mishra

The Bihar State Electricity Board Through Chairman and Ors. Vs Gauri Shankar Mishra

Satyendra Kumar Tiwari Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Dr. Pawan Kumar Vs The Union Of India and Ors.