LPA No.1313 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No.1313 of 2011 Date of Decision: November 09, 2011 Momi Ram .......Appellant Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA Present: Mr.HN Khanduja, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.RKS Brar, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. <><><> TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J. The present Letters Patent Appeal arises out of order dated 21.3.2011 passed in Civil Writ Petition No.5065 of 2011. 2. The appellant, who was working on the post of NDSI/PTI, retired on 31.10.1995 upon attaining the age of superannuation. He filed Civil Writ Petition No.5065 of 2011 being aggrieved of the action of the respondent-authorities in withholding a sum of Rs.68,261/- towards gratuity on account of requisite 'no due certificate' having not been released by the Department of Education, State of Haryana. Accordingly, a prayer was made for the release of the amount towards gratuity as indicated hereinabove. 3. Learned Single Judge has taken note of the fact that the cause LPA No.1313 of 2011 2 of action accrued to the appellant in the year 1997 i.e. the point of time when gratuity was withheld, and it was after a lapse of about 14 years that the writ petition was filed. Accordingly, vide impugned order dated 21.3.2011, the writ petition has been dismissed solely on the ground of delay. 4. Mr.HN Khanduja, learned counsel for the appellant has been heard. He has argued that there can be no delay and laches insofar as consideration of a claim of pensionary benefit is concerned. That apart, learned counsel has further argued that the appellant had been vigilant and serious about the release of the withheld amount of gratuity and in support of such submission relied upon various letters that had been appended along with the petition. Q. The short question that arises for consideration before us is as to whether a claim in the nature of release of a retiral benefit can be answered in the negative merely on the ground of delay and laches? 5. While considering the question of a belated service claim, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others v. Tarsem Singh reported as 2008 (4) SCT 19 observed as under: “To summarise, normally, a belated service related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches (where remedy is sought by filing a writ petition) or limitation (where remedy is sought by an application to the Administrative Tribunal). One of the exceptions to be said rule is cases relating to a continuing wrong. Where a service related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy, with reference to the date on which the LPA No.1313 of 2011 3 continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong creates a continuing source of injury. But there is an exception to the exception. If the grievance is in respect of any order or administrative decision which related to or affected several others also, and if the re-opening of the issue would affect the settled rights of third parties, then the claim will not be entertained. For example, if the issue relates to payment of refixation of pay or pension, relief may be granted in spite of delay as it does not affect the rights of third parties. But if the claim involved issues relating to seniority or promotion etc., affecting others, delay would render the claim stale and doctrine of laches/limitation will be applied. In so far as the consequential relief of recovery of arrears for a past period, the principles relating to recurring/successive wrongs will apply. As a consequence, High Courts will restrict the consequential relief relating to arrears normally to a period of three years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition.” 6. In case of Shiv Dass v. Union of India and others, (2007)9 SCC 274, the writ petitioner was denied the disability pension in the year 1983. He filed a writ petition in the High Court in the year 2005. This writ petition was dismissed by the High Court on the ground of delay and laches. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while remanding the matter to the High Court made the following observations: “In the case of pension the cause of action actually continues from month to month. That, however, cannot be a ground to overlook delay in filing the petition. It would depend upon the LPA No.1313 of 2011 4 fact of each case. If petition is filed beyond a reasonable period say three years normally the Court would reject the same or restrict the relief which could be granted to a reasonable period of three years. The High Court did not examine whether on merit the appellant had a case. If on merits it would have found that there was no scope for interference, it would have dismissed the writ petition on that score alone.” 7. The appellant is a pensioner. Withholding an amount of gratuity which forms a part of his retiral benefit entails civil consequences. It is a claim which is purely personal to the appellant and adjudication of such a claim would not affect the rights of third parties. Such a claim would also be construed as a continuing wrong. 8. We are of the considered view that the present appeal deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 21.3.2011 passed in Civil Writ Petition No.5065 of 2011 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned Single Judge for adjudication of the prayers raised in the writ petition on merits. 9. Ordered accordingly. ( PERMOD KOHLI ) ( TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA ) JUDGE JUDGE NOVEMBER 09, 2011 SRM Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes/No