Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sarla Rani vs Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam ... on 27 August, 2012
Author: Rakesh Kumar Garg
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Garg
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.9247 of 2012
Date of decision: 27th August, 2012
Sarla Rani
Petitioner
Versus
Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others
Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
Present: Mr. Parveen Kumar Rohilla, Advocate for the petitioner.
RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.
Husband of the petitioner was appointed to the post of Assistant Lineman on 7th April, 1973 on temporary basis and his services were regularized on 18th February, 1980. Then he was further promoted to the post of Special Foreman. He expired on 28th June, 1991 during his service. The terminal benefits were also released to the petitioner. It is the further case of the petitioner that the respondents took a decision that the work- charge service followed by regular service of an employee will be counted for the purpose of granting retiral benefits and issued instructions on 6th August, 1993.
As per the aforesaid instructions, which were to be got noted from all the employees, the respondents had sought option from all the employees as to whether they wanted to remain members of Employees Provident Fund scheme or they intended to count the period of work-charge service rendered by them towards the pensionary benefits.
It is the grievance of the petitioner that the terminal benefits of her husband have been released without counting the period of his temporary service with effect from 7th April, 1973 to 17th February, 1980. The petitioner approached the respondents and requested for granting her Civil Writ Petition No.9247 of 2012 2 the benefit by counting the aforesaid temporary service, but the respondents orally declined her claim. It is the further case of the petitioner that she has served a legal notice dated 14th March, 2012 in this regard but the respondents have failed to redress the grievance of the petitioner and thus, she is entitled to release of arrears of retiral benefits of her husband after granting the benefit of temporary service rendered by him.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the petition as well as the documents placed on record of this case.
Admittedly, husband of the petitioner expired on 28th June, 1991 and thereafter, the petitioner had received the terminal benefits of her husband. According to the petitioner, the policy for granting benefit of temporary service had come into being on 6th August, 1993. However, the petitioner raised her grievance for the first time only by serving a legal notice (Annexure P-2) dated 14th March, 2012, i.e. after about 19 years. No explanation is forthcoming for approaching the Court after such a long delay. A perusal of the writ petition would show that no explanation has been offered and in fact, the petition is totally silent in this regard.
In this view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to invoke its extraordinary writ jurisdiction in this case as the petitioner has raised a stale claim and has failed to explain the delay of 19 years in approaching this Court.
Thus, this petition is dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.
(RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE August 27, 2012 rps