Madras High Court
The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board ... vs The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, ... on 7 January, 1992
Equivalent citations: (1992)1MLJ481
JUDGMENT
S. Nainar Sundaram, Actg. C.J.
1. The petitioner in W.P.No.5023 of 1988 is the appellant in this writ appeal. The respondent in the writ petition is the respondent in this writ appeal. We propose to refer to the parties as per their nomenclature in the writ petition for the sake of convenience.
2. The petitioner came to this Court asking for a writ of declaration that the action of the respondent in not giving credit to 50 per cent work charged service and the entire O.S.S. service of the employees who retired before 20.8.1979 for purpose of pension is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14 and 18 of the Constitution of India, and for a consequential direction to the respondent to count the same also for the members of the petitioner, who retired from service before 20.8.1979. In view of the limited scope of the controversy in this writ appeal, there is no need to tread upon the merits of the case, suffice it to state the learned single Judge was inclined to countenance the grievance of the petitioner. The learned single Judge repelled the contention advanced by the respondent that the Writ Petition has got to be thrown out on the ground of laches. Then the question arose as to the payment of arrears of pension. This question has been dealt with by the learned single Judge in the following terms:
The learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that so far as payment of arrears of pension is concerned, it should be paid from the year 1979. Having regard to the lapse of time and the fact that the petitioner has filed the writ petition in the year 1988 and their rights accrue from the grant of declaration in these proceedings only. I consider to be just and necessary to confine the date of entitlement for arrears from the date of filing of the writ petition i.e., 25.4.1988. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decisions reported in Common Cause a Registered Society v. Union of India , and State of Kerala v. Padmanabhan , to claim that pension should be paid to the pensioners from 1979. The rulings referred to by the learned Counsel for the petition have no relevance whatsoever to the point in issue and they are inappropriate. Consequently, the entitlement for arrears of pension will be from the date of filing of the writ petition. The writ petition is ordered in the above terms.
As rightly contended by Ms. R. Vaigai, learned Counsel for the petitioner, when once it has been found that the petitioner could not be denied the reliefs on the ground of laches, there cannot be a mutilation of the reliefs on the ground of delay in the disposal of the writ petition. That will be a very harsh rule, because no litigant need be put to prejudice on account of any act of Court. When we remember that principle, we do not think there is any justification for denying the pensionary benefits from 1979. Accordingly, we are obliged to allow this writ appeal and we do allow this writ appeal and the writ petition will stand allowed in respect of the reliefs prayed for therein except costs. We make no order as to costs in this writ appeal.