Allahabad High Court
Smt. Indu Srivastava vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 18 August, 2023
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:54773
Court No. - 20
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6086 of 2023
Petitioner :- Smt. Indu Srivastava
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Social Welfare Deptt. Lko. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shamshad Ahmad Khan
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties.
2. Petition has been filed seeking a direction to opposite parties to treat petitioner's husband on duty for the period of termination with effect from 28.04.1987 till 21.03.1995 and to sanction grade pay/ promotional pay-scale with consequential re-fixation of pay and pension and for payment of same alongwith interest.
3. Brief facts of the petitioner's case are that the petitioner's husband was appointed as Compounder by the Deputy Director, Harijan Evam Samaj Kalyan, Faizabad on 2.5.1986. Subsequently, the services of the petitioner's husband were terminated vide order dated 30.12.1986 passed by the Superintendent, Government Ashram Type School, Pratapgarh. Being aggrieved, he challenged the termination order before the U. P. Public Services Tribunal by means of Claim Petition No. 501/F/IV/1987, which was allowed by the judgment dated 20.1.1995. The said judgment was challenged by the State Government before this Court by filing a Writ Petition No. 4950 (SB) of 1995, in which, till date, no interim order has been passed. After reinstating the husband of the petitioner in service on 3.4.1998, the pay was fixed. While in service, he died on 8.2.2007. After the death of the petitioner, the petitioner's son also been offered compassionate appointment under the Dying-in-Harness Rules. Thereafter, on 29.5.2009, the opposite party No.3 directed the opposite party No.4 to make payment of provisional pension to the petitioner. On 9.1.2010, the opposite party No.5 has also directed the opposite party No.4 to ensure payment of provisional pension to the petitioner as per Government Order dated 28.10.1980.
4. Petitioner's Counsel submits that it was only through the aforesaid letter, she came to know that the State Government has filed a Writ Petition against the judgment passed by the Tribunal.
5. It has been submitted that the aforesaid Writ Petition No.4950 (S/S) of 1995 was thereafter dismissed as infructuous on 28.10.2013.
6. It has further been submitted that in pursuance of order dated 15.03.2010, pension was paid to petitioner which is still being paid to petitioner.
7. Learned counsel has adverted to letter dated 31.03.2016 written by the Deputy Director indicating the fact that vide order dated 03.04.1998, for the aforesaid time period, petitioner's husband was granted leave without pay and certain other documents were required from petitioner with regard to the claim as is being made to the present petition. It is submitted that despite aforesaid documents having been made available by petitioner, no final decision has been taken till date.
8. Learned State Counsel on the other hand submits that claim has been made by petitioner is not only stale but a dead claim since it pertains to year 1987 to 1995. It is further submitted that petitioner's late husband even during his life time never agitated for such a claim which was not even claimed by the petitioner in the earlier writ petition filed in the year 2010.
9. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material available on record, it is quite evident that grievance of petitioner pertains to the year 1997 till 1995 when the petitioner's late husband was alive and subsequently passed away only in the year 2007. It is admitted that during his life time, petitioner's late husband never agitated for such a grievance.
10. Even regarding petitioner, earlier Writ Petition No.1411(S/S)2010 was filed by petitioner seeking post retiral benefits. The said petition was disposed of by means of order dated 15.03.2010 in pursuance of which pensionary benefits were made available to petitioner. Here also it is admitted that even in the aforesaid writ petition, the claim as is being made in the present writ petition was never agitated.
11. Clearly, the claim as is being made in present petition is not only highly barred by laches but is also not available in terms of applicability of provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
12. With regard to submission regarding letter dated 31.03.2016, it is also evident that the said letter was also issued in the year 2016 whereafter also seven years now have passed.
13. Considering aforesaid facts, in the considered opinion of this Court, prayer as made in the petition is a dead claim for which no relief can be granted after about 30 years. Petition being devoid of merits therefore is dismissed at the admission stage itself.
Order Date :- 18.8.2023
Subodh/-
