P.DHANALAKSHMI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal is filed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge, in W.P.No.26626 of 2019, dtd. 6/9/2019.

(2.) The unsuccessful writ petitioner is the appellant herein. The case of the appellant is that, while her husband was serving as a Health Inspector (PHC) Achankuttapatti, a criminal case was foisted against him for offence punishable under Ss. 147, 148, and 302 read with Sec. 149 IPC, and in the said criminal case, the appellant's husband was convicted for an offence under Sec. 323 IPC, and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. Aggrieved against which, the appellant's husband preferred an Appeal in Crl.A.No.575 of 1996 and this Court, vide a judgment, dtd. 27/9/2002, disposed of the Appeal by modifying the punishment of imprisonment to that of a fine Rs.1000.00, and the said fine amount was also paid. Subsequently, in view of the judgment passed in Crl.A.No.575 of 1996, dtd. 27/9/2002, the appellant's husband suspension period from 1/9/1995 to 14/12/2005 was regularized, and, in view of the commencement of disciplinary proceedings, he was imposed with the punishment of compulsory retirement, by order, dtd. 14/2/2005. Thereafter, though the appellant's husband was paid with provisional pension for the suspension period, he was not paid the pension w.e.f. 15/12/2005. Seeking the same, the appellant's husband made several representations to the respondents. In the meantime, the appellant's husband passed away on 18/1/2019. After the death of her husband, the appellant made a representation dtd. 16/4/2019, to the respondents for sanction of arrears of pension payable to her husband. The said representation, dtd. 16/4/2019 made by the appellant was not considered by the respondents, and hence, she filed the Writ Petition for issuance of a mandamus on the respondents to consider her representation, dtd. 16/4/2019, for sanction and disbursement of arrears of pension payable to her deceased husband, Mr.K.Pitchupatthan. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both the parties, dismissed the Writ Petition on the ground of delay and laches. The same is under challenge in this Appeal.

(3.) We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Government Advocate for the first respondent and perused the materials available on record.