Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 2515 (RAJ)

Jamuna Bai v. Union of India

2009-12-08

MAHESH BHAGWATI, R.C.GANDHI

body2009
JUDGMENT 1. 1. By virtue of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 22nd May, 2001 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur, whereby the application under Section 19 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act has been dismissed in exercise of the powers 'under Section 21 (1) (B) of the Act as being barred by limitation. 2. Dhanna Lal Mehar was working as Gangman in Western Railway, Rail Path Nirikshak, Ramganj Mandi, Kota. He died on 15.7.1972 while he was on duty. Widow of the deceased made several representations to the respondents for grant of pension, but of no avail. She ultimately filed a Suit before the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division) and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, No. 1 (North), Kota, which came to be disposed of vide order dated 14.11.2000 with the direction that the plaintiff petitioner should approach the competent Court. Faced with this situation, the petitioner presented Original Application under Section 19 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act before the Central Administrative Tribunal, respondent No. 4. The Tribunal appreciated the facts that Dhanna Lal died on 15.7.1972 and the petitioner has approached the Tribunal in the year 2001 and before that the petitioner has filed a suit which also was not presented within the prescribed statutory limitation and relying upon the judgments reported in SLJ 1997 (3) CAT 45, 1996(1) SCC (L&S) 205 and 2000 (1) SC SLJ 178 came to the conclusion that in the facts and circumstances of the case the application is hopelessly barred by limitation as the claim for pension has been filed after 20 years and dismissed the application. 3. Aggrieved of the order of the Tribunal, this petition has been presented on the ground that the Tribunal has not appreciated the legal position as the pension is a continuing grant and statutory provisions in such circumstances need to be over-looked as held by the Supreme Court in case title Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, reported in 2008(8) SCC 648 . In this case (supra) Tarsem Singh was invalidated out of Army service, in medical category in the year 1963. He approached the High Court in 1999, seeking direction to the respondents therein to pay him disability pension. The learned Single Judge allowed pension, restricting it to 38 months. In this case (supra) Tarsem Singh was invalidated out of Army service, in medical category in the year 1963. He approached the High Court in 1999, seeking direction to the respondents therein to pay him disability pension. The learned Single Judge allowed pension, restricting it to 38 months. In the appeal preferred by Tarsem Singh, the Division Bench released the arrears of pension of 10 years instead of restricting it to 3 years. The dispute, in such circumstances landed before the Supreme Court. The Apex Court considering the judgments reported in A.I.R. 1963 SC 807, (1995) 5 SCC 628 and (2007) 9 SCC 798, observed in para 7 of the judgment as under: "To summarise, normally, a belated service related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches (where remedy is sought by filing a writ petition) or limitation (where remedy is sought by an application to the Administrative Tribunal). One of the exceptions to the said rule is cases relating to a continuing wrong. Where a service related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy, with reference to the date on which the continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong creates a continuing source of injury. But there is an exception to the exception. If the grievance is in respect of any order or administrative decision which related to or affected several others also, and if the reopening of the issue would affect the settled rights of third parties, then the claim will not be entertained. For example, if the issue relates to payment or refixation of pay or pension, relief may be granted in spite of delay as it does not affect the rights of third parties. But if the claim involved issues relating to seniority or promotion, etc., affecting others, delay would render the claim stale and doctrine of laches/limitation will be applied. In so far as the consequential relief of recovery of arrears for a past period is concerned, the principles relating to recurring/successive wrongs will apply. As a consequence, the High Courts will restrict the consequential relief relating to arrears normally to a period of three years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition." 4. The case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the case of Tarsem Singh (supra). As a consequence, the High Courts will restrict the consequential relief relating to arrears normally to a period of three years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition." 4. The case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the case of Tarsem Singh (supra). Therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in dismissing the Original Application on the ground of delay and laches. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, we allow the writ petition and set aside the order of the Tribunal. The case is remanded to the Tribunal with the direction to hear and decide it on merits within a reasonable time.Writ Petition Allowed. *******