IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP-T No. 4170/2008 Decided on:23.4.2010 _____________________________________________ Nagindru Devi. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner : Mr. L.N. Sharma, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. Advocate General. _____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). Petitioner’s husband was appointed as OT (Shastri Teacher) on 23.4.1947. He was confirmed on 1.9.1948. He resigned in the month of April, 1960 as per Annexure A-5. He had also filed original application bearing OA No. 22/1988 before the learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. The same was dismissed by the learned Tribunal on 4.9.1989. Order dated 4.9.1989 reads thus: “It is 12 noon, but neither the applicant is present nor he is represented by counsel. The application is, therefore, liable to be dismissed in default. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2 Even otherwise, the application is not maintainable. The reply filed by the Director of Education discloses that the applicant had resigned from service in April, 1960, which averment stands un- refuted by the applicant even though 2/3 adjournments were given to enable him to file rejoinder. As the applicant had resigned from service, he is not entitled to pensionary benefits. The application is, therefore, dismissed summarily.” A bare perusal of order dated 4.9.1989 reveals that the petitioner’s husband could not refute the averments contained in the reply that he had resigned from the Government service. He was granted two-three adjournments for doing the same by filing rejoinder. In Annexure A-5, the word resigned is clearly mentioned. He had resigned in the month of April, 1960. The original application filed by the petitioner’s husband was also belated. He had filed the original application in the year 1988. The present petition has been filed on the same and similar facts on 7.11.1996. This petition is barred by delay and laches. Since the petitioner’s husband had resigned from the Government service, she is not entitled to any family pension. Accordingly, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 23.4.2010 *awasthi*