ASHOK VERMA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:-

(2.) After hearing learned counsel for the rival parties, this Court is of the considered view that petitioners/appellants are entitled to the arrears of pension and so also to interest for the reasons infra.

(3.) A further argument/objection which was raised by the State was that the quantum of arrears at best cannot be more than 3 years prior to the date of filing of petition, which is the period under the Limitation Act prescribed for raising money claim, in a civil court. This argument of the State is heard to be rejected since denial of even a fraction of arrears of pension would amount to denial of right to livelihood which is a part and parcel of the right to life a fundamental right in the Constitution. Undeniably there is no limitation fixed for invoking power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution but the petitioner concerned has to satisfy the Court if the approach to the court is delayed. Once it is held (supra) that the cause of action raised by the petitioner is a recurring cause of action then the question of restricting the arrears of pension does not arise. Another objection raised by the learned counsel for the State and it's functionaries is that assuming without admitting that petitioners are entitled to arrears of pension but the same cannot be granted for a period prior to the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP filed against the order of Division Bench of Madras High Court passed in P. Ayyamperumal (supra).