Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.2232 of 2008. Dated of Decision : July 5, 2011. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lekh Raj Sharma. ……… Petitioner. Versus Union of India and others. …….. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajiv Rai, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Asstt. Solicitor General of India. Surinder Singh, J (oral): By means of this petition, mainly the following relief has been sought by the petitioner:- “ That the present petition may kindly be allowed and the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue the writ of mandamus against the respondent whereby the respondent may kindly be directed to release the pensionary benefits of the petitioner since the date of the relieving/ discharge from the service along with interest @ 15% p.a.” 2. Brief facts as alleged by the petitioner are that on 17.5.1967, he was enrolled as Hawaldar (Mechanic) in the Indian Tibet Border Police (ITBP). He served for 11 years 1 - 2 - month and 28 days, thereafter on 15.7.1978, got “discharge” from the service (Annexure P- 1). The petitioner alleged that in fact, in the year 1976 because of some compelling family circumstances, he tendered a request for retirement but his request was not acceded to, by the respondents in time and finally, he was discharged from service on the date aforesaid. 3. Now after about 29 years from the date of discharge, the claim of the petitioner is that he had rendered 10 years of qualifying service in the said Force and is entitled for pensionary benefits, but the respondents did not grant him any such benefit, as such, on 23.5.2007, he made representation to the respondents vide Annexure P-2. In response whereof it was informed that the petitioner was discharged at his own request, therefore, he was not entitled for the pensionary benefits. Hence, the present petition, seeking the above relief. 4. The claim of the petitioner has been resisted and contested by the respondents. It - 3 - is submitted that though the service record of the office of 4th Battalion of ITBP prior to the year 1985 gutted into fire incident at Leh and there is no information about the service record of the petitioner, but however, according to them, on the basis of the contention raised by the petitioner in his legal notice as well as in the present petition, the petitioner is not entitled for the pension as he was short of the qualifying service and was discharged from the service on his own request. 5. Shri Rajiv Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent- department was bound to inform the petitioner when he sought discharge that the pensionary benefits cannot be granted to him, so that he could have opted to withdraw his request so made. He also ventilated that the respondent department should have informed him that the petitioner would not be entitled for pensionary benefits. - 4 - 6. Shri Sandeep Sharma, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India submitted that had the petitioner tendered his such a request on the completion of 20 years of qualifying service that could have been considered for the relief sought, but on the face of the facts as contended in petition, no pensionary benefits can be granted to him. Therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed, also on the grounds of delay and latches. 7. I have thoughtfully considered the above submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the records of the case. 8. Pertinently, the petitioner placed on record all the communications made to the respondents from the year 2007, onward i.e. about 29 years, after his discharge, without explaining the delay in making the representation. Had the discharge of the petitioner been contrary to what he initially intended, he should have raised the objection at that time of his discharge in the year 1978 - 5 - with due promptness, or within a reasonable time. Since he failed to do so, the relief sought cannot be granted now after about three decades on the ground of delay and latches. Even otherwise, the petitioner can also not be granted any pensionary benefits, as he was short of qualifying service by 9 years and 11 months. Further the discharge certificate Ext.P1 does not make such a reference nor there is any other document to substantiate the plea of petitioner that he had made the request for voluntary retirement. Legally, one can get voluntary retirement on completing 20 years of qualifying service. The discharge certificate is quite clear and admits to no ambiguity, therefore, it was not incumbent upon the respondents to further inform the petitioner that he was not entitled for pension. 9. For the reasons aforesaid, in my opinion, now the relief sought cannot be granted. Hence, the petition is dismissed. July 5, 2011 (Surinder Singh) (Pds) Judge