Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/765220/2008 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7652 of 2008
=========================================================
HEMLATABEN
ISHWARBHAI PASHUMA-IWALA - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 4 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MS
PRITI PANDYA for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MS KRINA CALLA, ASST GOVERNMENT PLEADER for
Respondent(s) : 1,4 - 5.
NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1 -
5.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 23/10/2008
ORAL
ORDER
1. Heard
learned counsel for the parties.
2. By
way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to direct the
authorities to release the pension and other retirement dues
including PF with interest of the deceased which has not been paid
during his life time i.e. from 02.11.1980 till his death on
19.01.2002.
3. The
petitioner’s husband was an employee of the respondent no.1 during
the period 1955 to 1989. On 11.05.1989, the respondent issued a show
cause notice qua compulsory retirement. The petitioner’s husband was
finally issued the order of compulsory retirement with effect from
02.11.1980. The respondent authority on 21.03.2003 informed the
petitioner that the petitioner was not entitled to the pension.
Being aggrieved by the said action of not releasing the pension
amount, the present petition has been preferred.
4. Ms.
Pandya, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted
that the respondent authorities have ignored the services rendered by
the petitioner. She has further submitted that the petitioner’s
husband was entitled to pension and all other retirement benefits
from 02.11.1980 till his death on 19.01.2002 and in turn the
petitioner being the widow of the deceased employee is entitled to
due family pension from 20.01.2002 as per the order of the competent
authority.
5. Ms.
Calla, learned AGP appearing for the respondent authorities has
supported the impugned order and has submitted that this petition is
not maintainable as at the first place itself there is an inordinate
delay by the petitioner in preferring this writ petition. He has
submitted that the petitioner is claiming the benefits from the year
1980 in the year 2008 and the same should not be entertained by this
court in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Shiv
Dass vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in AIR 2007 SC 1330.
5.1 Ms.
Calla has further submitted that the decision was taken on the ground
that the petitioner’s husband was compulsorily retired from the
service and therefore the petitioner shall not be entitled to any
pension. She has submitted that the order does not call for any
interference from this court.
6. This
Court has perused the documents placed on record by both the sides.
As a result of hearing and perusal of records, it is clear that the
petitioner had joined the services under respondent no.1 in 1955 and
served till 1989. The petitioner is claiming the dues from the year
1980 in the year 2008. It will be relevant to peruse decision of the
Apex Court in the case of Shiv Dass (supra) wherein the
Apex Court relying upon the decision reported in AIR 1987 SC 251 has
upheld the view that if there is inordinate delay on the part of the
petitioner and such delay is not satisfactorily explained, the High
Court may decline to intervene and grant relief in exercise of its
writ jurisdiction. It was stated that this rule is premised on a
number of factors. The High Court does not ordinarily permit a
belated resort to the extraordinary remedy because it is likely to
cause confusion and public inconvenience and bring in its train new
injustices, and if writ jurisdiction is exercised after unreasonable
delay it may have the effect of inflicting not only hardship and
inconvenience but also injustice on third parties. It was pointed
out that when writ jurisdiction is invoked, unexplained delay coupled
with the creation of third party rights in the meantime is an
important factor which also weighs with the High Court in deciding
whether or not to exercise such jurisdiction.
7. In
view of the above, this Court is not inclined to grant the prayers
prayed for in the present petition at such a belated stage. Even
otherwise it is borne out from the affidavit-in-reply of the
respondent authority that the pursuant to the letter dated 03.03.2003
sent by the petitioner to the respondent authority for sanction of
release of pension, the respondent no. 4 vide letter dated 21.03.2003
communicated to the petitioner that the husband of the petitioner
cannot be granted the pension inasmuch as the husband of the
petitioner was made to compulsorily retire and hence according to
rule 186(A) of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules 2002, the
same cannot be granted. Paras 4 & 5 of the affidavit-in-reply
clearly explains this fact. The petitioner therefore cannot be
entitled to any family pension. No interference is called for in the
present petition and the same requires to be dismissed.
8. For
the foregoing reasons, petition stands dismissed. Notice is
discharged. No order as to costs.
(K.S.
JHAVERI, J.)
Divya//
Top