Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1422 (MAD)

V. Mahalingam v. Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Secretary

2013-03-25

T.RAJA

body2013
Judgment :- 1. The petitioners seek for issuance of writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to sanction pension and other retirement benefits to the first petitioner taking into account his service as Weaving Instructor from 04.06.1961 to 10.02.1973 with effect from 10.02.1973. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The first petitioner was appointed as Weaving Instructor at Desigar High School, Valivalam, on 10.06.1963. Subsequently, after rendering service near about 10 years, he resigned from service on 10.02.1973. After retirement, he sent representations dated Nil.12.1999 and 24.01.2011 (as per the typed set enclosed) requesting to sanction pensionary benefits. But, the respondents have not passed any order to his representations. 4. From the above, it is clear that the first petitioner, after sleeping over the matter for about 27 years upon his resignation on 10.02.1973, sent a representation only on Nil.12.1999, and again after taking near about 12 years for reminder, sent another representation dated 24.01.2011 seeking pensioner benefits. Therefore, in view of huge delay of 27 years, he cannot expect consideration of his case, for, it is quite unlikely that the department still keeps intact about 3 decades old papers and even otherwise, in usual course, they would have sent such old papers for destruction. Moreover, it is well settled law that the delay defeats justice and equities and the equitable doctrine has its fullest application in the matter of grant of relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. The discretionary relief can be had, provided one has not by his act or conduct given a go-by to his rights. Equity favours a vigilant rather than an indolent litigant and this being the basic tenet of law, the question of entertaining the prayer of the first petitioner, who, as highlighted above, after resigning from service on 10.02.1973, submitted his representation only on Nil.12.1999, does not and cannot arise in this matter. 5. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, the present writ petition filed by the petitioner’s stands dismissed on the ground of laches. No Costs.