A single judge bench of the Justice A.S. Supehia of Gujarat HC dismissed the petition by observing that petitioner herself is not serious in claiming her right of pension. Instead of challenging the impugned communication dated 14.03.2016 within a reasonable time period, she has filed this writ petition after a period of 6 years with a prayer of deciding her application dated 01.09.2022.
Facts:
The present petition is filed for seeking a relief of issuing appropriate writ, order or direction upon the concerned respondent authority to decide the application of the petitioner dated 01.09.2022. The petitioner, who was appointed on the post of Junior Clerk in the year 1982 and had voluntarily resigned from service, is seeking pension. It is deserved to be noted that the petitioner filed Special Civil Application No.2873 of 2012, which was disposed of as withdrawn vide order dated 20.07.2012 with liberty to move make representation. The representation to be preferred by the petitioner shall be decided within four months from the date of the receipt of the representation in accordance with law.
Thereafter, the representation was made by the petitioner after a period of 4 years on 20.02.2016, which was rejected vide communication dated 14.03.2016 by the Superintending Engineer, Bhavnagar clarifying that she is not entitled to pension as she has resigned from service and the service rendered by her will not be counted as pensionable service. The petitioner went into slumber and after a further period of 6 years, has filed this writ petition with an innocuous prayer of directing the respondent to decide the application dated 01.09.2022 without challenging the impugned communication dated 14.03.2016, by which her request for pension was rejected.
Observations of the Court
The court observed that the relief is cleverly drafted since prima facie the relief appears to be innocuous, wherein the petitioner is seeking direction upon the respondent authority to decide her application dated 01.09.2022. It was noticed from the above mentioned facts that the petitioner herself is not serious in claiming her right of pension.
Instead of challenging the impugned communication dated 14.03.2016 within a reasonable time period, she has filed this writ petition after a period of 6 years with a prayer of deciding her application dated 01.09.2022. There is no whisper in the entire petition that how she would be entitled for pension. In fact, while withdrawing the earlier writ petition on 20.07.2012 no liberty was sought by the petitioner to challenge the same in case there an adverse order is passed against her rejecting her pension. Thereafter, also the petitioner has made a representation after 4 years.
Therefore, the petitioner has not challenged the order dated 14.03.2016 within reasonable time period and hence, any direction at this stage directing the respondent to decide her application would give further rise to a cause of action, which has attained finality and also to further litigation and indirectly the Court would be condoning the delay of all these years.
Decision:
The present petition was dismissed as the court is of the view that petitioner herself is not serious in claiming her right of pension and denied the indirectly condone the delay of all these years.
Case: Naynaben Chunilal Bhuptani vs State of Gujarat
Citation: R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 22036 of 2022
Coram: Justice A.S. Supehia
Dated: 10.11.2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com:
Picture Source :
