Hans Ram vs Union Of India & Anr.
1995 Latest Caselaw 576 Del

JUDGMENT

R.C. Lahoti, J.

1. The petitioner claiming to be an ex-army personnel enrolled in the Watch and Ward Wing of the Indian Army has filed this petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay pension to the petitioner w.e.f. 15-12-1956.

2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is liable to be dismissed on account of culpable delay and laches on the part of the petitioner in filing the writ petition.

3. It is not disputed that the petitioner was enrolled in the Watch and Ward Wing of the Indian Army on 16-12-1941. He retired on 15-12-1956, at the age of 41 years. According to the petitioner, he having rendered 15 years service in the Army was entitled to receive pension which having been denied, he has approached the Court. According to the respondents D.V. personnel of Watch and Ward Wing were offered regular engagement vide Government of India letter dated 18th August, 1954 so that entire service rendered on war engagement is counted towards pensioner service. Subsequently, regular engagement term were offered to such personnel by lowering and other standards as far as possible so that they become eligible to earn pension under the new pension code by virtue of their regular status. Those who did not volunteer or were not accepted for regular engagement were to be discharged by 1st April, 1956. Some of them as had some reckonable pre-war engagement service were declared eligible for pension under the New Pension Code. Those whose entire service was on war engagement, a gratuity of 15 days pay for each year of service was provided.

4. Apart from the above said factual statement, the petition has been vehemently opposed on the ground of delay and laches on the part of the petitioner. It is submitted that as per Army Instructions, service record is preserved for 20 years, in the case of personnel holding pensionable post, and for 25 years in case of non-pensionable services. The petitioner had retired on 15-12-1956. He was not allowed pension. The petitioner's documents show that on 11-12-1975 he had wrote some letter, in response to which the respondent had on 17-10-75 denied the petitioner's claim explaining their stand. The petitioner reiterated his demand in September, 1975 and by letter dated 23-12-1975 he was told that he had not rendered the qualifying service and was entitled only for service gratuity of Rs. 315/- which was paid to him. The petitioner observed silence thereafter. He served a legal notice on 20th February, 1992, the date on which a period of 25 years calculated from the date of retirement had already expired. The petition has been filed on 26-2-1993. The respondents have stated on oath that the service record of the petitioner is not available to verify the correct facts and place the same before the Court. It is also submitted that if such petitions are entertained it would tantamount to opening a pandora's box creating serious financial and other complications.

5. It is true that ordinarily in matters relating to pension the writ Courts do not deny the relief on account of delay merely. A sympathetic and liberal view is always taken. Indulgence is invariably shown. In the case of Bachan Kaur v. Union of India, (W.P. 621 of 1989) decided on 13-4-1985, a Division Bench of this Court has taken the view that a writ petition claiming pension if the claim be otherwise just and legal may be entertained and allowed limiting the same to a period of three years before the date of filing of the petition. In the present case the petitioner has on account of culpable delay and laches extending over a period of 25 years himself created a situation which disentitles him to any relief. The service record of the petitioner is not available. It is not known as to why and in what circumstances the petitioner was paid merely the gratuity and yet felt satisfied therewith though no pension was allowed. If only the petitioner would have approached the Court within a reasonable time, the respondents could have been directed to search and produce the relevant service record of the petitioner enabling a just decision of the petitioner's claim, which is not possible in the present case. The entire fault is of the petitioner. Howsoever sympathetic we may be with the petitioner, sitting as a writ Court, we cannot grant relief of pension, to the petitioner merely as a charity or bounty in the absence of relevant facts being determinable and relevant documents available.

6. For the foregoing reasons the petition is dismissed though without any order as to costs.