Harsha Kaithwas vs Union Of India & Anr
2016 Latest Caselaw 3366 Del

$~20.
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+     W.P.(C) 3913/2016 and CM APPL. 16577/2016
      HARSHA KAITHWAS                         ..... Petitioner
                  Through: Ms. Seema Sharma, Advocate with
                  Mr. Prashan Kumar and Mr. Yashvir Gyalot,
                  Advocates

                         versus

      UNION OF INDIA & ANR                        ..... Respondents
                    Through: Ms. Archana Gaur, SGSC with
                    Mr. Santosh Kumar Pandey, Advocate and
                    Inspector Sanjay Kumar, CISF.

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

                         ORDER

% 06.05.2016

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying inter alia

for directions to the respondent No.2-CISF to pay her House Rent

Allowance (hereinafter referred to as 'HRA'), to which she claims she is

legitimately entitled.

2. At the outset, it has been enquired from learned counsel for the

petitioner as to explain why the present petition was filed so belatedly for

seeking relief that relates to the period from 13.05.2010 to 01.01.2012,

particularly when an actionable cause of action had arisen in favour of the

petitioner in the years 2010-12. There is no explanation for the delay in

filing the writ petition and nor is any reason for the delay forthcoming from

the counsel for the petitioner except for submitting that such a relief had

been granted in a writ petition to similarly placed personnel of the CISF,

vide order dated 23.05.2008.

3. If she was aware of the said order, then the petitioner ought to have

approached the Court within a reasonable time from the date she became

entitled to claim HRA, but no steps were taken by her to seek her legal

remedy for over five years. In these circumstances, the relief prayed for in

the present petition shall have to be treated as a stale claim. Filing of a

representation by the petitioner before the respondents as belatedly as in the

year 2016, would not be a ground to entertain the present petition.

4. Accordingly, the present petition alongwith the pending application is

dismissed on account of delay and laches.

HIMA KOHLI, J

SUNIL GAUR, J MAY 06, 2016 rkb