GANDHI RAM MAHAJAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) which the pension was granted to the petitioner from 1 -8 -1980. The petitioner ought to have annexed a copy alongwith the writ petition but he had not done so ; nor he has produced the same inspite of the directions given b/ this Court. Whatever that may be, the question which arises now is whether the petitioner is entitled to get the pension from the date of the application or from 1 -8 -1980 as decided by the Government Though the decision of the Government was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 20 -1 -1982, the petitioner has not approached this Court till 23 -11 -1995 when he filed this writ petition. In the petition, he prayed for grant of arrears from................. with 12 per cent interest from...............As the petitioner is not in a position to give the correct date of the application he has chosen to leave the date blank but the learned Counsel argued that arrears shows at least be granted to the petitioner from September 1993 as Annexure PB shows that it was a reply sent by the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur to the petitioner which refers the application having been made by the petitioner earlier.

(2.) The petitioners counsel places reliance on Note (i) of Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme, 1972. The said note reads as follows i - "Note (i): The Pension Scheme commenced from 15th August, 1972, applications received on or before 14ih August, 1973 will be sanctioned pension from August 15, 1972 Applications received thereafter will be considered for pension only from the date of receipt."

(3.) When the petitioner got the sanction letter/order, he should have challenged the same on the footing that he was entitled to get the pension from the date of the application in view of Note (i) of the Scheme. But he did not do so for more than 13 years. The petitioner claimed to have sent several letters to the concerned authorities repeatedly claiming pension from the date of his application Merely sending such representations will not enable the petitioner to get any relief He further contends that this writ petition should be considered irrespective of the long and inordinate delay on the part of the petitioners