1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to direct the respondents to give him the benefit of monthly Pension with effect from 17.04.1963 till date along with the arrears of Pension with 18% interest.
2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner was appointed as Jr. Clerk in the Office of respondent no.2 vide order dated 14.08.1950 and he worked as such up to 16.04.1963 when he tendered his resignation on account of some personal problems.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that though he is entitled for retirement benefits, including pensionary benefits, the respondents have denied him the said benefits.
4. Being aggrieved by the said action of the respondents, the present petition has been preferred.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The present petition was filed in January 2001 for the purpose of claiming pensionary benefits, which, according to the petitioner, became due in April 1963. In other words, for claiming pensionary benefits, the present petition has been filed after a period of more than 37 years. No satisfactory explanation has come from the petitioner for the inordinate delay caused in filing the present petition.
6. Looking to the facts of the case, it would be relevant to refer to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Shiv Dass v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 2007 SC 1330. In that case, it has been held that if petition is filed beyond a reasonable period, say three years, normally, the Court would reject the same or restrict the relief. In the case of Rajendra Pratap Singh Yadav & Ors., v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors (2011) 7 SCC 743, it has been held that once the seniority list is published it cannot be disturbed at the behest of the person who chose not to challenge it for four years. In the case of C. Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining & Anr. (2008) SCC 115, it has been held that where an employee reappears after two decades, he cannot be treated as having continued service, nor can he be given benefit of qualifying service for pension. Similar, view has been taken in the case of Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Dugal Kumar (2008) 14 SCC 295. In the present case, as stated herein above, the petitioner has claimed the benefit after a delay of more than 37 years. Hence, only on the ground of delay, the relief as prayed for cannot be granted.
7. Even otherwise, the petitioner does not fulfill the criteria prescribed in Rule-254 of the Bombay Civil Services Rules, 1959 which pertains to retirement pension. Therefore also, the petitioner is not entitled for any pensionary benefits.
8. In view of the above discussion, I find no merits in the petition. Hence, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.
[K. S. JHAVERI, J.]
Pravin/*