1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondent State.
2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to compute the amount payable to the petitioner's father towards gratuity in terms of the scheme and release the same with interest at the rate of 18% per annum in the light of judgment of this court passed in Writ-A No.17399 of 2019; Usha Rani Vs. State of U.P. and others decided vide judgment and order dated 07.11.2019.
3. Grievance of the petitioner is that his father while holding the post of Assistant Teacher in a primary school run and managed by Board of Basic Education died on 30.09.2001 and the petitioner is claiming for payment of his gratuity.
4. There is a delay of more than 19 years, therefore, a query was made to learned counsel for the petitioner that in which paragraph of the writ petition the delay occasioned has been explained, he invited attention of this court on paragraph 13, 14, 15 and 16 of the writ petition.
5. He next submitted that gratuity is due amount of petitioner's deceased father and the delay occasioned will not come into picture while releasing the amount of gratuity to the petitioner. In support of his submission, he placed reliance upon following judgments:
i) Vinod Trading Company Vs. Union of India and others; (1982) 2 Supreme Court Cases 40.
ii) Bir Bajrang Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and others; AIR 1987 Supreme Court 1345.
6. On the other hand, learned standing counsel in support of his submissions placed reliance upon a judgment in the case of Corporation Bank and another Vs. Navin J. Shah; (2000) 2 Supreme Court Cases 628, wherein it has been held that three year's delay can be considered within reasonable time and if there is unreasonable long delay, the claim will be rejected. He placed reliance upon another judgment in the case of Laxman Dundapa Dhamanekar and another Vs. Management of Vishwa Bharata Seva samiti and another; (2001) 8 Supreme Court Cases 378, wherein the question came for consideration of promotion of service of a teacher on account of absence without leave, wherein the petitioner approached after long time of ten years claiming entitlement of payment of salary as well as arrears.
7. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record as well as law reports relied upon by learned counsel for the parties.
8. To resolve the controversy, the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the parties are being quoted below:
a) Judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner:
i) Vinod Trading Company Vs. Union of India and others; (1982) 2 Supreme Court Cases 40 :-
"2. On hearing Counsel on either side, it is not possible for us to sustain the order of the High Court dismissing the petition 'in limini'. Since the questions which are involved in this petition are also pending in several other matters in the High Court, this petition is also directed to be heard on merits along with those petitions. In the meantime, the guarantee furnished persuant to the orders of this Court will continue to operate till the disposal of the petition by the High Court."
ii) Bir Bajrang Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and others; AIR 1987 Supreme Court 1345 :-
"2. Heard counsel for the parties. After going through the record of the case it appears that one of the cases involving an identical point has already been admitted by the High Court but another identical petition was dismissed by the same High Court. This, therefore, creates a very anomalous position and there is a clear possibility of two contradictory judgments being rendered in the same case by the High Court. In these circumstances, we allow this appeal and set aside the order dismissing C.W.J.C. No. 163 of 1985. This appeal is remanded to the High Court to be heard along with C.W.J.C. No. 5728 of 1984 which is pending hearing."
b) Judgments relied upon by learned standing counsel for the respondent - State :-
i) Corporation Bank and another Vs. Navin J. Shah; (2000) 2 Supreme Court Cases 628:
"12. We may further notice that there is another strong reason as to why the claim made by the respondent should not have been granted. The transactions in question took place in the years 1979 and 1981. The difficulties in realisation of the amounts due from the consignee also became clear at the time when the claim was made before the Corporation and the claim had been made as early as on December 19, 1982. The petition before the Commission was filed on September 25, 1992 that is clearly a decade after a claim had been made before the Corporation. A claim could not have been filed by the respondent at this instance of time. Indeed at the relevant time there was no period of limitation under the Consumer Protection Act to prefer a claim before the Commission but that does not mean that the claim could be made even after unreasonably long delay. The Commission has rejected this contention by a wholly wrong approach in taking into consideration that foreign exchange payable to Reserve Bank of India was still due and, therefore, the claim is alive. The claim of the respondent is from the bank. At any rate, as stated earlier, when the claim was made for indemnifying the losses suffered from the Corporation, it was clear to the parties about the futility of awaiting any longer for collecting such amounts from the foreign bank. In those circumstances, the claim, if at all was to be made, ought to have been made within a reasonable time thereafter. What is reasonable time to lay a claim depends upon facts of each case. In the legislative wisdom, three years period has been prescribed as the reasonable time under the Limitation Act to lay a claim for money. We think, that period should be the appropriate standard adopted for computing reasonable time to raise a claim in a matter of this nature. For this reason also we find the claim made by the respondent ought to have been rejected by the Commission."
ii) Laxman Dundapa Dhamanekar and another Vs. Management of Vishwa Bharata Seva samiti and another; (2001) 8 Supreme Court Cases 378 :-
"13. Before we part with the case, we would like to observe that we are in agreement with the view taken by the High Court that it is unbelievable that the appellants were not paid their salary for the last 10 years, as at no point of time, the appellants had made any grievance either to the Head of the Department or to the Management in respect of non-payment of salary. If the appellants were not paid salary, they ought to have made representation to the Head of the Department or gone to a court of law for recovery of arrears of salary which they did not do so. Therefore, they are not entitled to arrears of salary for the last ten years. Under such circumstances, we are of the view that the appellants are entitled to arrears of salary only for the last 3 years. In the present case, we also find that the management was guilty of wilful default and non-observation of Rules. Assuming there was requirement of obtaining approval of Head of the Department in regard to appointment of the appellants, which the management is now contending, it does not appear to reason why management did not take any steps for obtaining approval of the Head of the Department and permitted the appellants to teach in the institution for long period of ten years and suddenly the management treats the services of the appellants having automatically terminated. For such wrongful act on the part of the Management, we direct that arrears of salary to the appellants shall be paid by the Management from its own funds and not from the financial assistance received from the Government."
9. On perusal of the aforesaid and the record, it is evident that in the writ petition there is no explanation in regard to delay occasioned of 19 years in filing the writ petition.
10. The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner does not help the petitioner in any manner, however, the judgments relied upon by learned standing counsel take notice of the fact that without explaining proper delay in the writ petition, the relief claimed cannot be granted.
11. Here, in the present case, it is admitted that the petitioner has approached to this court after lapse of 19 years without explaining the reasons to approach the court with such delay.
12. Accordingly, the judgments relied upon by learned standing counsel have substance in the matter.
13. The relief claimed by the petitioner after lapse of 19 years without explaining proper delay cannot be granted.
14. The writ petition lacks merit and being barred by time is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 22.2.2021 Adarsh K Singh