Sh. Anwar Ali v. Union of India and Others

1. Present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner seeking the following reliefs:- “(i) That the respondents be directed to grant the entire retiral benefits out of his service period from 07.12.1972 to 19.01.1998 accordingly pension, gratuity, PF leave encashment be given to petitioner alongwith arrears with 18% interest.

(ii) That the respondents also be directed to start the future pension and entire arrears be paid to petitioner within 30 days from the directions.

(iii) That the respondents also be directed that cost and compensation also be awarded to petitioner or any fit and proper directions also be passed as Hon'ble Court think fit and proper, in interest of justice”

2. Issue notice.

3. Mr. Sushil Kumar Pandey, learned Senior Panel Counsel accepts notice on behalf of Respondent No. 1.

4. Mr. Rajat Arora, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of Respondents No. 2 and 3.

5. From the averments in the writ petition, it emerges that Petitioner had joined Respondent No. 2/Bank of India as a Clerk on 07.12.1972 at Jamshedpur Branch, Bihar and was promoted to the Officer Category on 16.09.1981.

6. A major penalty chargesheet was issued against the Petitioner, pursuant to which a departmental enquiry was initiated, which culminated into a penalty of ‘dismissal’ from service on 19.01.1998. Petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of dismissal, which from a reading of letter dated 26.06.2000 filed along with the writ petition shows that the same was not delivered at the office of Respondent No. 2.

7. Present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner seeking his retiral benefits payable on dismissal from service. Insofar as the delay in filing the writ petition is concerned, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner states that for the past few years Petitioner was suffering from a mental illness for which he has relevant medical records and was, therefore, unable to represent to Respondent No. 2 or approach this Court for his retiral benefits. It is further submitted that as soon as the Petitioner became well, he made a representation to Respondent No. 2 on 23.12.2021, followed by a reminder on 07.01.2022. However, since there was no response, Petitioner has filed the present writ petition. It is contended that claim to retiral benefits is a continuing cause of action and Courts have been liberal in condoning the delay with respect to pensionary benefits.

8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 1/Union of India submits that Respondent No. 1 has no role in the matter as no relief is sought against Union of India.

9. Insofar as Respondents No. 2 and 3 are concerned, Mr. Rajat Arora, learned counsel appearing on their behalf, submits that the dismissal of the Petitioner goes back to the year 1998 and since the records are very old, he is unable to take instructions, at this stage, as to whether the representations stated to have been preferred by the Petitioner were received in the office of Respondent No. 2 and if so, whether they are pending or have been decided.

10. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. In my view, it would be appropriate, at this stage, to direct Respondents No. 2 and 3 to treat the writ petition as a representation and decide the same within six weeks from today, in accordance with law and the Regulations governing the parties to the lis. The representation shall be decided by a reasoned and speaking order, which shall be communicated to the Petitioner, who is at liberty to take recourse to remedies, in accordance with law, in case of any surviving grievance.

11. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any expression/opinion on the merits of the case including the objection of the Respondents that the writ petition is barred by delay and laches, which is left open to be adjudicated by the Appropriate Forum, in case the Petitioner takes recourse to further legal proceedings.

12. Writ petition is disposed of, in the aforesaid terms.