JATUNBIBI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Letters Patent Appeals arise out decision rendered by a learned Single Judge in Special Civil Applications No.659 of 1987 and 5487 of 1986, on 22/11/1988.

(2.) The facts of the case leading to these Letters Patent Appeals may be stated. The appellants in Letters Patent Appeal No.430 of 1989 are the heirs of deceased-Chandminya Musaminya Shaikh, the deceased and appellant in Letters Patent Appeal No.431 of 1989, Babubhai Lallubhai Patel, were formerly working in Navsari Borough Municipality. Both of them retired from service on 7/05/1966 and 5/09/1965, respectively. Around that time, a pension scheme was under consideration and was subsequently sanctioned by the Government on 1 7/03/1967, in respect of employees of the said Municipality. The said scheme was made applicable from 28/05/1966. Resultantly, these two employees, who had retired prior to 2 8/05/1966, were not given the benefit of the pension scheme. They, therefore, made separate representation to the Municipality for giving them the benefit of pension in terms of the scheme. Those representations came to be rejected by the Municipality by resolutions No.45 and 46 passed on 24/06/1968. The employees, therefore, made representations to the Government and the Government, ultimately, turned down their requests/representations in the year 1976 stating that they were not entitled to pension as the scheme was made applicable from 2 8/05/1966. The employees had, in the meantime, preferred an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act in the year 1974, which was ultimately dismissed in January 1984. Thereafter, the present petitions came to be preferred, one in 1986 and the other in 1987. These factual aspects are not disputed by the parties.

(3.) The petitions came to be rejected by the learned Single Judge on the ground of delay and laches in preferring the petitions and asserting the right. The learned Single Judge observed that it was not necessary to enter into the merits of the claim of the appellants and to decide whether or not they are entitled to claim pension under the said pension rules or pension scheme since the petitions deserve to be rejected on the ground of gross delay. It was also observed that the claim of the appellants for the pension was rejected in 1969 and in 1976 by the Government and, therefore, the petitions were belatedly filed after ten years of rejection of claim. The learned Single Judge further held that the appellants' claim was rejected latest on 20/05/1976 and, therefore, undisputedly, the appellants could not have approached the Civil Court by way of suits to seek relief of declaration and arrears of pension as the suits would be barred by limitation. The learned Single Judge also observed that the appellants have approached the Court many years after the date for which, according to them, they are entitled to pension, but had not taken any steps in any court for the recovery of the alleged pension even after their claim was rejected by the respondent till filing of the petitions and, therefore, there is gross delay in filing petitions. In view of these contentions, the petitions came to be rejected.