Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1076 (RAJ)

M. P. Bhatnagar v. U. O. I.

2009-04-20

N.K.JAIN

body2009
JUDGMENT Hon'ble JAIN, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition with a prayer that an appropriate writ order or direction may be issued directing the respondents to pay simple interest @ 18% per annum on the amount of gratuity and commuted value of the pension which was paid with a delay of 10 years and 6 months. 3. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner retired in the year 1988, whereas he was paid the arrears of commuted value of the pension and gratuity in the year 1998, therefore, he is entitled for interest on delayed payment. He submitted a representation but the respondents rejected the same. Hence the present writ petition has been preferred by him. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the petitioner has not approached this court with clean hands. He preferred the Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal for the same relief which was dismissed vide order dated 21.7.2003 and without disclosing the said fact and without challenging the said order passed by the CAT before this court, he has preferred this writ petition. The Tribunal rejected the Original Application filed by the petitioner on the ground of limitation. He also contended that now for the same relief he has preferred the present writ petition before this court in 2005, therefore, the writ petition is not only liable to be dismissed on the ground of suppression of material facts but even otherwise it is liable to be dismissed being highly belated. 5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and examined the pleadings as well as documents annexed therewith in the light of their submissions. From the pleadings and documents, it is clear that the petitioner retired way back on 30.6.1988. There was a dispute about addition of 5 years qualifying service of the petitioner for retiral benefits and a representation had been given for the same. The case was examined and the same was decided and soon thereafter the arrears of commuted pension as well as gratuity were paid in the year 1998 and 1999. According to the petitioner, there was a delay in making the payment of arrears, therefore, he moved a representation before the respondents for award of interest but the same was rejected vide order dated 12/13 September, 2001 (Annexure 11). According to the petitioner, there was a delay in making the payment of arrears, therefore, he moved a representation before the respondents for award of interest but the same was rejected vide order dated 12/13 September, 2001 (Annexure 11). The petitioner again moved representation for award of interest and the petitioner was informed vide letter dated 20.6.2003 that his representation had already been rejected. Being aggrieved with the same, the petitioner preferred Original Application No. 321/03 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, which was dismissed at admission stage itself vide order dated 21.7.2003. A copy of which has been placed on record along with reply to the writ petition filed on behalf of the respondent No.2. The Tribunal rejected the application on the ground of limitation by observing that the representation of the petitioner for grant of interest, was rejected on 12th/13th September, 2001. The repeated representation does not extend the period of limitation prescribed u/s 21 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. It is relevant to mention that reply to the writ petition was filed way back on 25.7.2006, but till date no rejoinder has been filed on behalf of the petitioner explaining the above referred circumstances and fact regarding filing and rejection of Original Application for the same relief for which the present writ petition has been filed. It is settled law that extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this court under Art. 226 and 227 of the Constitution, is not available to such person who has not come with clean hands before this court. From the above facts, it is clear that the petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal for the same relief which has been prayed in this writ petition and without mentioning a single word about the dismissal of the Original Application by the Central Administrative Tribunal, the writ petition has been preferred on 8.9.2005. 6. In view of the above discussion, it is clear that the petitioner is guilty of suppression of the material facts from this court and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground in addition to delay/laches in filing the present writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.