Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Banshi Badan Mondal vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 26 July, 2018
Author: Protik Prakash Banerjee
Bench: Protik Prakash Banerjee
Form No.J(2)
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
Present : The Hon'ble Mr Justice Protik Prakash Banerjee
W.P.No.9318(W) of 2018
Banshi Badan Mondal
-vs-
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Nitya Gopal Mukherjee ....for the petitioner
Mr. Aniruddha Sen ...for the State
Heard on : July 26, 2018
Judgment on : July 26, 2018
Protik Prakash Banerjee, J:
The writ petition is moved on service. The State has appeared. Affidavit
of service is taken on record.
The petitioner's case is that the respondent-authorities did not disburse
pension in his favour till October 28, 2011, though the pension order was released on June 1, 2011 even though he retired on January 31, 2011. He says that it was a right to get the pension immediately after his retirement, and that the delay of ten months has entitled him to get interest on the arrear pension.
Learned advocate for the State points out that though the allegations made in para.5 of the petition that the petitioner allegedly requested the authorities to get the arrears of his pension after expiry of one week from his retirement, in effect, apart from this one paragraph, there is no explanation why he waited for seven years from the date of the pension becoming due to him and today in moving the court for an order; at the very least after he had got disbursement of the pension however delayed in October 2011, he could have made a representation in writing which too has not been alleged in the petition.
If this had been a civil claim and the petitioner had gone to a civil court, no cause of action would have accrued for his money claim from the date when it became due. The statutory period of limitation is normally the outermost period of delay which can be called reasonable within the jurisdiction of the writ court. Here, the situation is aggravated, because the writ petitioner has not even alleged he took any step which could be construed to be reasonable or save him from the allegations of unreasonable delay.
The situation has become exacerbated by the fact that in this court for the last few years in cases of interest on arrears of payment of pension and gratuity have become a revenue stream where orders have been passed on the basis of the writ petitions which are alleged to be similar to those which have decided in appeal and which, for sometime, are based on consent of the parties. By submitting that the cases are same, sometimes we are misled into passing an order where in law the only order which ought to have been passed should have been one of dismissal.
Accordingly, because the delay has not been explained, I hold the reasons for the delay not to have been properly made out. It is trite that the court of equity aids the vigilant and not the dormant.
Accordingly, I decline to exercise jurisdiction on the grounds of unconscionable delay in presentation of the present writ petition and hence dismiss it. No costs.
Certified website copy of this order, if applied for, shall be given to the parties.
(Protik Prakash Banerjee, J) Subrata