MAHESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.K. Singhvi for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as well as learned Standing Counsel representing the respondent No. 1.

(2.) THE petitioner, by means of this writ petition prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 2 to release the gratuity, fund, pension etc. to the petitioner and pay its arrears. According to the assertion made in the writ petition, petitioner's mother Smt. Rama was in employment of the respondents Nagar Nigam, Varanasi and she died in the year 1979. It is submitted that for the gratuity and other post retirement benefits for which an application has been filed in sometime in the year 1980 by the father of the petitioner, namely, Dhannu Ram and according to the petitioner no action has been taken as yet. It is stated by learned Counsel for the petitioner at the Bar that Dhannu Ram, who has filed this application, is still alive. In these circumstances, petitioner does not have any cause of action to file the present writ petition. Even though the petitioner wants to get the cause of action revived, which according to the assertion made in the writ petition came into existence in the year 1979 and nothing has been done by the petitioner. It appears that no further step has been taken except the filing of the present writ petition, even the father of the petitioner has kept quiet after filing an application in the year 1979. In these circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed on the ground firstly that the petitioner has no locus to file the present writ petition and secondly even it is presumed that petitioner has a locus, the petitioner has guilty of latches.