Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 238 (DEL)

MOHAR SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA

2001-02-22

MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA

body2001
MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA ( 1 ) THE relief that is sought for in this writ petition is a direction to the respondents to sanction and pay war injury pension to the petitioner with effect from 24/4/1973. ( 2 ) THE petitioner was enrolled as a soldier in the Indian Army on 4/1/1966. It is stated that the petitioner received two gun shot injuries on 11/9/1967 on the Chinese border. Documentary evidence in support of the said statement is placed on record which indicates that the petitioner was wounded on border skirmishes against China on 11/9/1967. It is alleged that consequent to the said injury, the petitioner was treated in the hospital. The petitioner was discharged from the Military Hospital on 23/4/1973. The petitioner was not paid any pension as he did not complete the qualifying service for getting such benefit. Although the petitioner was discharged from the military service on 23/4/1973, he raised no grievance for non-payment of any kind of pension to him for long years and slept over it. After expiry of about 27 years thereafter, the petitioner sent a legal notice to the respondents for grant of war injury pension to him. Having received no reply from the respondents, the petitioner has filed the present petition in this Court. ( 3 ) COUNSEL appearing for the respondents has taken up a preliminary objection contending, inter alia, that this writ petition is required to be dismissed on the ground of laches and delay for, no explanation has been given by the petitioner for not approaching this Court at an earlier stage and also for the delay of about 27 years. ( 4 ) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as also the counsel appearing for the respondents. ( 5 ) COUNSEL appearing for the petitioner submitted before me that the relief sought for in this petition cannot be denied to the petitioner merely on the ground of delay and even if it is held that there is some delay, relief could be moulded to the petitioner appropriately if he is otherwise found eligible to grant of the said war injury pension. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied upon the ratio of the decision in Aiaib Singh Vs. Sir hind Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Service Society Limited and another; reported in (1999) 6 Supreme Court Cases 82. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied upon the ratio of the decision in Aiaib Singh Vs. Sir hind Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Service Society Limited and another; reported in (1999) 6 Supreme Court Cases 82. The counsel also relied upon,the ratio of the decision in State of Bihar and Ors. , vs. Kameahwar prasad Singh and Anr. ; reported in JT 2000 (5) SC 389. ( 6 ) COUNSEL appearing for the respondents, however, submitted that having not approached this Court for 27 years and having slept over the matter for such a long period, the petitioner cannot seek for any equitable relief from this Court. She also submitted that as per Army instructions, service record is preserved for 20 years in case of persons holding pensionable post and for 25 years in case of persons holding non-pensionable post. The records in the present case, therefore, would not be preserved after expiry of the aforesaid period. In support of her contention, the counsel relied upon a Division-Bench decision of this Court in Hans Ram Vs. Union of India; reported in 1995 (34) DRJ 393 and also the decision of the Supreme Court in Management of M/s. Indian Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. Prahlad Singh; reported in VII (2000) SLT 747. ( 7 ) IN the light of the aforesaid submission of the counsel appearing for the parties, I have considered the contention raised by the parties in this writ petition. ( 8 ) THE petitioner stood discharged from Army service with effect from 23/4/1973. The claim of the petitioner for grant of war injury pension is based on notification issued by the respondents on 24/2/1972. Therefore, when the petitioner was discharged from service, the aforesaid circular was already issued by the respondents. After the petitioner was discharged from service, admittedly, he was not paid any kind of pension. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner raised any grievance as against such non-payment of pension at any point of time till 6/04/2000 when the petitioner for the first time sent a legal notice to the respondents claiming grant of war injury pension. No explanation whatsoever is given by the petitioner in the writ petition to explain the reasons and the grounds for not approaching this Court at any earlier stage. The petitioner slept over his right for a long period of 27 years. No explanation whatsoever is given by the petitioner in the writ petition to explain the reasons and the grounds for not approaching this Court at any earlier stage. The petitioner slept over his right for a long period of 27 years. ( 9 ) IN my considered opinion, the ratio of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Hans Ram (supra) is applicable to the facts of the present case in full force. In the decision of Management of M/s. Indian Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. (supra) as the claim was made after a period of 13 years without any reasonable or justifying ground, the petition was dismissed as there was nothing on record to explain the delay. ( 10 ) ALTHOUGH no period of limitation is prescribed for approaching the writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but the law is well-settled that such an approach is to be made within a reasonable period without their being any delay. This writ petition suffers from inordinate delay and laches for long 27 years and there is no explanation for such delay worth the name in the writ petition. The writ petition, therefore, stands dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.