JUDGMENT : I.A.No.10952 of 2019 This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 22 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal. 2. Heard. 3. No counter affidavit has been filed opposing the prayer for condoning the delay. 4. Having regard to the averments made in this application, we are of the view that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the period of limitation. 5. Accordingly, I.A.No.10952 of 2019 is allowed and delay of 22 days in preferring the appeal is condoned. L.P.A. No.501 of 2019 6. The instant intra-court appeal preferred under Clause-10 of Letters Patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 03.05.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.4851 of 2014, whereby and whereunder, the direction sought for by the writ petitioner for release of C.M.P.F. dues, gratuity amount and family pension, have been decided to be paid in favour of the writ petitioner only on submission of succession certificate, being aggrieved with the same, the writ petitioner has preferred the instant appeal. 7. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition, required to be enumerated, are as hereunder:- It is the case of the writ petitioner that his father, who was an employee under the respondents-CCL had died in harness on 17.09.1991. The mother of the writ petitioner has also died on 08.06.1992. The writ petitioner has been given compassionate appointment on 18.02.1993. The claim of the writ petitioner for release of C.M.P.F. dues, gratuity amount and family pension has become due way back in the year 1991-92. But the writ petitioner has invoked to this Court by filing the writ petition being W.P.(S) No.4851 of 2014 only on 12.09.2014. The respondents-CCL has appeared before the learned Single Judge and taken the plea that there is no record available in the office of the respondent Company showing any pending claim against the services of the deceased-father of the writ petitioner. Further, ground has been taken that more than 25 years have lapsed since the death of father of the writ petitioner, as such, the writ petition is required to be dismissed on the ground of inordinate delay. Further, ground has been taken that more than 25 years have lapsed since the death of father of the writ petitioner, as such, the writ petition is required to be dismissed on the ground of inordinate delay. The respondent-CMPF has also appeared and filed counter affidavit taking the ground inter-alia therein that the refund claim of the deceased member has already been settled for Rs.5,58,417/-under para 64(iii) of CMPF Scheme, 1948, as no nomination subsist, on perusal of Schedule “C” forwarded by the colliery management, i.e., the list of surviving family member, contains the name two minor son Dasan and Taman as on the date of death on 17.09.1991 of the member is payable to the holder of Succession Certificate, the share of minor sons and daughters who were alive on the date of death of late Jagdish, CMPF A/c No.D/387100. It has further been stated that the amount of PF will be released in two shares of Rs.279209/-and Rs.279208/-as and when the claim will be received from the management along with the succession certificate(s) obtained from the Competent Court in the matter of Estate of legal heir(s) of both two sons late Dasan and late Taman both S/o of late Jagdish, respectively as both sons are dead after the death of the member, i.e., late Jagdish. The learned Single Judge after considering the stand inter-alia taken by the respondent CCL as also respondent CMPF has passed the order by the considering the factual aspect to be disputed and as such, the writ petitioner has been given liberty to produce the succession certificate with a direction upon the CMPF authorities that if any succession certificate is produced, the CMPF authorities are directed to act and release the amount. So far as the other dues regarding the pension is concerned, since the claim has been raised after 23 years and as such, the same cannot be considered. Even the documents are not available with the respondents. So far as the gratuity amount is concerned, the aforesaid claim has also been rejected on the ground that the writ petitioner has approached the court of law after delay of 23 years, against which, the present intra-court appeal has been preferred. 8. Mr. Even the documents are not available with the respondents. So far as the gratuity amount is concerned, the aforesaid claim has also been rejected on the ground that the writ petitioner has approached the court of law after delay of 23 years, against which, the present intra-court appeal has been preferred. 8. Mr. Nand Kishore Prasad Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-writ petitioner has submitted that the writ petitioner is the sole surviving sons of the deceased employee and two sons have already died, therefore, the entire amount of gratuity/CMPF is to be paid in his favour by settling the account, even though, there is nomination subsists. But, according to him, the learned Single Judge without appreciating that aspect of the matter has not considered the said claim, rather, has directed the writ petitioner to produce the succession certificate with a direction upon the CMPF authorities to release the amount on production of the succession certificate issued from the competent court of law. Further, contention has been raised that the amount of pension as also the gratuity have also been denied to be paid, since, the writ petition has been filed after lapsed of 23 years, but the said direction cannot be said to be justified one, since, making payment of the pensionery benefit as also the gratuity, the writ petitioner cannot be made to suffer, if there is laches committed on the part of the respondent, therefore, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge suffers from material irregularity and as such, the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 9. Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-CMPF has submitted that the writ petition has been filed after lapse of 23 years and by that time, the nomination itself has lost its force and as such, in view of the provision of Rule 64(iii) of the CMPF Scheme, the decision has been taken to disburse the amount in equal shares in favour of the writ petitioner on production of the succession certificate, so that, there may not be any further dispute over the claim in question. According to him, the learned Single Judge after taking into consideration the aforesaid aspect of the matter, is correct in passing the order by giving liberty to the writ petitioner to produce the succession certificate and if such succession certificate will be produced, the CMPF authorities has been directed to act in accordance with law and as such, there is no illegality in the aforesaid order. 10. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-CCL has submitted that the learned Single Judge after considering the inordinate delay in filing the writ petition, i.e., has been filed after lapse of 23 years, therefore, issue of family pension as also the gratuity have rightly been not considered and as such, the same requires no interference. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record as also considered the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. 12. It appears from the factual aspects that the writ petition has been filed for three reliefs, i.e., (i) for disbursement of the amount pertaining to CMPF, (ii) for disbursement of the amount of family pension and (iii) for disbursement of amount pertaining to gratuity. 13. The admitted position herein is that the writ petitioner has approached this Court after lapse of 23 years from the date of death of the members of the CMPF who has died on 17.09.1991. The writ petitioner had claimed that he being the only surviving member in the family after the death of his father, since, two of his brothers and daughters have already died, therefore, the entire amount of CMPF, gratuity and family pension are required to be paid in his favour even in absence of nomination. The writ petitioner had claimed that he being the only surviving member in the family after the death of his father, since, two of his brothers and daughters have already died, therefore, the entire amount of CMPF, gratuity and family pension are required to be paid in his favour even in absence of nomination. The learned Single Judge has considered the aforesaid plea in the light of the provisions of para 64 (iii) of the CMPF Scheme, 1948 which has been brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent-CMPF as under para 5 and 6 thereof, wherein, it has been stipulated that the refund claim of the deceased member has already been settled for Rs.5,58,417/-under para 64(iii) of CMPF Scheme, 1948, as no nomination subsist, therefore, the Schedule “C” forwarded by the Colliery Management, i.e., the list of surviving family member which contains the name of two minor son Dasan and Taman as on the date of death of the member i.e., on 17.09.1991 is payable to the holder of Succession Certificate, the share of minor sons and daughters who were alive on the date of death of late Jagdish, for ready reference, relevant paragraphs, i.e., paragraphs 5 and 6 of the counter affidavit filed by the CMPF authorities reads as under:- “5. That the opposite party humbly submits that the aforesaid case it is stated that Refund claim of the above deceased member has already been settled for Rs. 5,58,417/-under para 64(iii) of CMPF Scheme, 1948, as no nomination subsist, On perusal of Schedule “C” forwarded by the colliery management, i.e. the list of surviving family member, contains the name two minor son Dasan and Taman as on the date of death on 17.09.1991 of the member is payable to the holder of Succession Certificate, the share of minor sons and daughters who were alive on the date of death of L/Jagdish, CMPF A/c No. D/387100. 6. That it is humbly stated that the amount of PF will be released in two shares for Rs. 279209/-and Rs. 6. That it is humbly stated that the amount of PF will be released in two shares for Rs. 279209/-and Rs. 279208/-as and when the claim will be received from the management along with the succession certificate(s) obtained from the Competent Court in the matter of Estate of legal heir(s) of both two sons L/Dasan and L/Taman both s/o L/Jagdish, respectively as both sons are dead after the death of the member i.e. L/Jagdish. In this Connection a letter has already been issued to the Colliery management.” 14. The learned Single Judge has appreciated the stand of the CMPF authorities and by taking into consideration the specific provision as contained under paragraph 64(iii) of the CMPF Scheme, 1948 which pertains for consideration of case of refund claim in case of subsistence of no nomination, the same can only be settled on the basis of the Schedule “C” forwarded by the Colliery Management which contains the list of surviving family member, in which, the name of two minor sons, namely, Dasan and Taman, the amount is to be paid to the holder of the succession certificate and taking it into consideration, the learned Single Judge is correct in passing the order by giving liberty to the writ petitioner to produce the succession certificate obtained from the competent court of law and in terms thereof, the CMPF authorities were directed to take decision in accordance with law. The issue of non-existence of nomination is not in dispute and as such, in that view of the matter, there is no dispute about the fact that the provision as contained under para 64(iii) of the CMPF Scheme, 1948 will operate, meaning thereby, the claim can only be settled on the basis of Schedule “C” forwarded by the Colliery Management. Further, the learned Single Judge has considered the amount of claim to be released in two shares i.e., Rs.279209/-and Rs.279208/-as and when the claim will be received from the management along with the succession certificate obtained from the competent court in the matter of Estate of legal heirs. 15. Further, the learned Single Judge has considered the amount of claim to be released in two shares i.e., Rs.279209/-and Rs.279208/-as and when the claim will be received from the management along with the succession certificate obtained from the competent court in the matter of Estate of legal heirs. 15. The learned Single Judge after considering the stand of the CCL Management, if passed an order by giving liberty to the writ petitioner to produce the succession certificate for obtaining the aforesaid amount, which cannot be said to suffer from an error, otherwise, in absence of succession certificate, if any direction will be passed, the same will be contrary to the provision as contained under para 64(iii) of the CMPF Scheme, 1948. Admittedly, the claim about gratuity and family pension have been made after lapse of 23 years that to without explaining the inordinate delay in filing the writ petition after lapse of 23 years from the date of death of father of the writ petitioner and the learned Single Judge after considering the aforesaid inordinate delay has refused to interfere with by passing a positive direction on that count, the same according to our considered view cannot be said to suffer from an error. For ready reference, as has been held in the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in U.P. Jal Nigam & Anr. V. Jaswant Singh & Anr., (2006) 11 SCC 464 , wherein on the ground of principle of delay and laches as under paragraph-9 to 11, it has been laid down that the delay disentitles a party to discretionary relief under Article 226 or Article 32 of the Constitution of India, for ready reference paragraph 9 to 11 reads as hereunder:- “9. Similarly in Jagdish Lal v. State of Haryana reported in (1997) 6 SCC 538 this Court reaffirmed the rule if a person chose to sit over the matter and then woke up after the decision of the court, then such person cannot stand to benefit. In that case it was observed as follows: (SCC p. 542) ‘The delay disentitles a party to discretionary relief under Article 226 or Article 32 of the Constitution. The appellants kept sleeping over their rights for long and woke up when they had the impetus from Union of India v. Virpal Singh Chauhan reported in (1995) 6 SCC 684 . In that case it was observed as follows: (SCC p. 542) ‘The delay disentitles a party to discretionary relief under Article 226 or Article 32 of the Constitution. The appellants kept sleeping over their rights for long and woke up when they had the impetus from Union of India v. Virpal Singh Chauhan reported in (1995) 6 SCC 684 . The appellants’ desperate attempt to redo the seniority is not amenable to judicial review at this belated stage’. 10. In Union of India v. C.K. Dharagupta reported in (1997) 3 SCC 395 it was observed as follows: (SCC p. 398, para 9) ‘9. We, however, clarify that in view of our finding that the judgment of the Tribunal in R.P. Joshi v. Union of India gives relief only to Joshi, the benefit of the said judgment of the Tribunal cannot be extended to any other person. The respondent C.K. Dharagupta (since retired) is seeking benefit of Joshi case. In view of our finding that the benefit of the judgment of the Tribunal dated 17-3-1987 could only be given to Joshi and nobody else, even Dharagupta is not entitled to any relief.’ 11. In Govt. of W.B. v. Tarun K. Roy reported in (2004) 1 SCC 347 , Their Lordships considered delay as serious factor and have not granted relief. Therein it was observed as follows: (SCC pp. 359-60, para 34) 34. The respondents furthermore are not even entitled to any relief on the ground of gross delay and laches on their part in filing the writ petition. The first two writ petitions were filed in the year 1976 wherein the respondents herein approached the High Court in 1992. In between 1976 and 1992 not only two writ petitions had been decided, but one way or the other, even the matter had been considered by this Court in State of W.B. v. Debdas Kumar reported in (1991) Supp (1) SCC 138. The plea of delay, which Mr Krishnamani states, should be a ground for denying the relief to the other persons similarly situated would operate against the respondents. Furthermore, the other employees not being before this Court although they are ventilating their grievances before appropriate courts of law, no order should be passed which would prejudice their cause. The plea of delay, which Mr Krishnamani states, should be a ground for denying the relief to the other persons similarly situated would operate against the respondents. Furthermore, the other employees not being before this Court although they are ventilating their grievances before appropriate courts of law, no order should be passed which would prejudice their cause. In such a situation, we are not prepared to make any observation only for the purpose of grant of some relief to the respondents to which they are not legally entitled to so as to deprive others therefrom who may be found to be entitled thereto by a court of law.” In Harwindra Kumar v. Chief Engineer, Karmik & Ors., (2005) 13 SCC 300 , wherein, the Court refused to extend the benefit applying the principle of delay and laches. It was held that an important factor in exercise of discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is laches and delay. When a person who is not vigilant of his rights and acquiesces into the situation, his writ petition cannot be heard after a couple of years on the ground that the same relief should be granted to him as was granted to the persons similarly situated who were vigilant about their rights and challenged their retirement. In Govt. of West Bengal v. Tarun K. Roy & Ors., (2004) 1 SCC 347 , Their Lordships considered delay as serious factor and have not granted relief. Therein it was observed at para-34 which reads hereunder as:- “34.The respondents furthermore are not even entitled to any relief on the ground of gross delay and laches on their part in filing the writ petition. The first two writ petitions were filed in the year 1976 wherein the respondents herein approached the High Court in 1992. In between 1976 and 1992 not only two writ petitions had been decided, but one way or the other, even the matter had been considered by this Court in State of W.B. v. Debdas Kumar reported in (1991) Supp (1) SCC 138. The plea of delay, which Mr Krishnamani states, should be a ground for denying the relief to the other persons similarly situated would operate against the respondents. The plea of delay, which Mr Krishnamani states, should be a ground for denying the relief to the other persons similarly situated would operate against the respondents. Furthermore, the other employees not being before this Court although they are ventilating their grievances before appropriate courts of law, no order should be passed which would prejudice their cause. In such a situation, we are not prepared to make any observation only for the purpose of grant of some relief to the respondents to which they are not legally entitled to so as to deprive others therefrom who may be found to be entitled thereto by a court of law.” 16. The learned counsel for the appellant, save and except, the aforesaid issue has not raised the other issue, therefore, this Court after going through the factual aspects as also by considering the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge, is of the considered view that the order passed by the learned Single Judge requires no interference. 17. In the result, the instant appeal fails and is, dismissed.