PAWAN BHARGAVA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE grievance expressed in the instant writ petition by the petitioner is that the relief of gratuity was declined to her by the Rajasthan Non -Government Educational Institutions Tribunal on the ground that it was barred by Article 137 of the Limitation Act. According to the learned Tribunal the application under Section 21 of the Rajasthan Non -Government Educational Institutions Act 1989 (for short '1989 Act') was filed after inordinate delay.

(2.) AFTER having heard rival submission and on carefully scanning the material on record, I am of the view that the claim of the petitioner could not have been dismissed on the ground of limitation. It is well settled that the cause of action for the retiral benefits is recurring and the provisions contained in the Limitation Act are not applicable to such cases. Even on the ground of delay and laches the claim of retiral benefits cannot be dismissed.

(3.) I do not find any force in the arguments of learned Counsel for the respondent that the petitioner got retired prior to enactment of the 1989 Act, she is not entitled to the gratuity. Although the provisions contained in 1989 Act are prospective in nature but I find that they are applicable to those employees also who got retired prior to application of the said. There can be no discrimination between the employees who got retired prior to application of the 1989 Act and those who got retired after the application of the said Act.