SAYARI DEVI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition through post by a poor starving petitioner Smt. Sayari Devi widow of late Shri Mangi Lal. r/o Village - Bhadwasi, Post Jayal, District Nagaur for issuing a mandamus for payment of General Provident Fund, State Insurance amounts and Family Pension on the ground, inter alia, that her deceased husband late Shri Mangi Lal was serving in the office of Public Works Department, City sub-division-I, Jodhpur. The petitioner's deceased-husband had worked as chowkidar at Dak Bungalow (B and R), City Sub-Division-I, Jodhpur up to May 1962 and expired on October 19, 1963. The petitioner disclosed here deceased-husband's GPF Account No. C. 1 / 2072 in her application.

(2.) LEARNED Single Judge of this Court on February 18, 1992 issued notice to show cause to the respondents as to why the petition should not be admitted and allowed.

(3.) LEARNED Additional Government Advocate accepted notices on behalf of the answering respondents on February 18, 1992 and reply to notice to show cause was filed admitting that the petitioner's deceased husband did serve the office of Public Works Department. City Sub-Division-I, Jodhpur upto May. 1962, and thereafter he went on long leave and expired on October 19, 1963, It is also stated in reply to show cause that after death of the petitioner's husband, the amount of Rs. 94/- was withdrawn from the Treasury by the Assistant Engineer. Incharge of Dak Bungalow, PWD, Jodhpur, The petitioner was informed so many times by letters but she did not turn up to receive the amount. Ultimately, a Money Order was sent to her bearing receipt No. 6235 dated August 31, 1964 after deducting Rs. 1. 50 as expenses incurred for sending the Money Order and the same was recorded in the Cash Book vide Voucher No. 133 dated August 31, 1964. It is nowhere stated in the reply as to whether the said Money Order sent to the petitioner was received by her or not. In support of the aforesaid Money Order sent to the petitioner, no documents have been filed. It is also stated in the reply to show cause notice that the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition after a lapse of 28 years, which is highly belated and as such is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches.