IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 15104 of 2010 Date of decision: 14.02.2011 Balbir Singh Arora ...Petitioner Versus Punjab & Sind Bank ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. A.S. Bhaskar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Sadhi, Advocate for the respondents. RANJIT SINGH J. The petitioner has filed this petition writ to claim Leave Fare Concession ('LFC' for short), which was due to him for the year 1999-2000. The petitioner had applied for LFC on 18.11.2000 from the respondent-Bank. The same was sanctioned by Senior Manager. A sum of ` 1 lakh sanctioned as anticipated fare for availing LFC. Subsequently, the petitioner took voluntary retirement on 29.01.2001 under the VRS Scheme. This amount of LFC was withheld. The petitioner made representation and ultimately approached the respondent-bank on the basis of judgment passed by this Court in October 2009, where similar claim was allowed. The petitioner received a communication rejecting the same. As per the counsel for the petitioner, this Court had already held similarly situated employee entitled to LFC and judgment in this regard has been placed on record as Annexure P-2. Counsel for the respondent-Bank does not dispute this factual position that the judgment would be applicable to the facts of the present case. He, however, submits that the petitioner has Civil Writ Petition No. 15104 of 2010 -2- approached this Court with inordinate delay and that would amount to defeat his right on that ground. No doubt, the petitioner is claiming this LFC for the year 1999-2000 after his retirement in the year 2001. Apparently, he has decided to make a present approach on the basis of decision in the writ petition, which was filed in the year 2004. Against this judgment, the Bank had also filed Special Leave Petition but the same was also dismissed. Even the review application was filed, which is also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The question, thus, to be seen would be whether the petitioner under these circumstances can be denied this relief on the ground of delay in making the approach. The petitioner was sanctioned this concession but the same was withheld. The delay in making the approach is because of the pending adjudication before this Court which case is decided now. This may give some justification to the delay on the part of the petitioner. More appropriately, the petitioner could be expected to approach this Court earlier when the relief was declined to him but this in itself cannot be held against him to deprive him of the benefit to which he is considered entitled an eligible as per the judgment passed by this Court. No third party rights are involved which may call for considering the delay as vital. This writ petition is allowed directing the respondent-Bank to release the LFC within a period of 3 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Disposed of accordingly. February 14, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE