DBSAW NO.1369/07. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R Smt.Jeet Kanwar Vs. State of Rajasthan and others D.B. SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.1369/2007. Date of order : 31/3/2008. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NARAYAN ROY HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Bharat Saini for the appellant. Shri Ankur Rastogi, Government Counsel. ****** BY THE COURT:- This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 9/5/2007 passed by the learned single Judge vide which writ petition of the appellant was dismissed. In writ petition, the appellant had prayed for a mandamus upon the respondents directing them to grant her pensionary benefits and other retiral benefits in lieu of the services rendered by her husband. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the learned Single Judge was not justified in refusing the pensionary benefits to the petitioner for reason of delay as the right to receive the pension is continuing right giving rise to cause of action on the first day of every month. It was argued that husband of the petitioner was serving the respondents as Constable having been enrolled in 1949. He has stated to have absented from duties w.e.f. 22/3/1971 and on that ground, his services were terminated vide order dated 24/1/1972. It was argued that the fact regarding DBSAW NO.1369/07. 2 termination of services of her husband, came to the knowledge of the appellant for the first time from reply of the respondents in the writ petition. Learned counsel further however argued that the whereabouts of the husband of the appellant were not known till 1996 when he was found by some one who brought him to home. He regained senses only in 1996 and, thereafter, efforts were made by the appellant and her husband for claiming retiral benefits. It was argued that termination order was passed without any enquiry and without providing any opportunity of hearing to the husband. Shri Ankur Rastogi, learned Government Counsel appearing for the State argued that the termination order was passed way back on 24/1/1972 and at no point of time, challenge was made to such termination order either by husband of the appellant during his life time or even by the petitioner thereafter. The writ petition, besides hopelessly delayed, also does not seek to challenge the termination order. The appellant cannot be held entitled to any retiral benefits. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned-order as also the material forming part of this writ petition, we find that the appellant in the writ petition has merely prayed for the relief for grant of pensionary and other retiral benefits. The termination order has remained unchallenged. Even after reply to that writ petition was filed by the respondents asserting that husband of the appellant was terminated from service vide order DBSAW NO.1369/07. 3 dated 24/1/1972, no challenge to termination order was made. The writ petition for the first time was filed in the year 2005 i.e. 25 years after the date of termination. In the writ petition, though plea has been set up that the husband of the appellant was mentally disordered but no material in support thereof has been placed on record to substantiate this fact. The respondents in reply however have come out with the plea that entire service record of the husband of the appellant has been weeded out and it is only through certain collateral record that some details could be gathered. It was therefore not possible for them to now defend the case properly. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the learned Single Judge did not commit any error of law in refusing to entertain the writ petition so belatedly filed. Till the order of termination was not set-aside by posing challenge to it before any appropriate forum known to law, there could be no question of granting any pensionary or other retiral benefits to the appellant. This appeal is therefore does not have any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. (NARAYAN ROY), CJ. anil