JUDGEMENT
-
(1.) THE writ petitioner was appointed as an assistant teacher of Bhodanagpara Free Primary School situated in the district of Dakshin Dinajpur vide memo dated 9th August, 1983, with effect from 18th August, 1983. Since then she has been continuing to discharge her duties as an assistant primary teacher in the said school. She filed the instant writ petition on 26th August, 2010, stating that under the Death-cum-Retiral Benefits Scheme, 1981, all teaching and non-teaching staff who were appointed on or after 1 st April, 1981, ] would be automatically governed by the Death-cum-Retiral Benefits Scheme, 1981 and no other scheme. It has been stated on behalf of the writ petitioner that having been appointed with effect from 18th August, 1983, i.e., after 1st April, 1981, she will be governed by the Death-cum-Retiral Benefits Scheme, 1981. However, the respondent authorities are sitting tight over the matter by not allowing her switch over from Contributory Provident Fund Scheme to the pension including family pension-cum-gratuity scheme. He submits that in such circumstances, the writ petitioner ought to get the benefit of the 1981 Scheme.
(2.) ON the other hand, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State submits that the writ petitioner has approached this Court after twenty- seven years and on this ground alone the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. She further submits that, in any event, it would appear from a copy of a letter of the writ petitioner, being annexure 'P-2' at page 15 of the writ petition, that the writ petitioner was well aware of the option given to her in terms of the 1981 Scheme. She submits that in the said letter, which was addressed to the District Inspector of Schools (PE), District - Dakshin Dinajpur, the petitioner herself acknowledged the existence of the circular dated 16th December, 1991, whereby another opportunity was given to the teachers, who were in the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme to switch over to the pension, including family pension-cum-gratuity, by exercising their option within a specified period. However, the writ petitioner has stated in her said letter that this circular was not circulated widely and consequently her school authority did not get the said circular and as such she was not aware of the said circular. Learned Advocate for the State submits that the writ petitioner could have very well exercised her option even in the year 1991, but she did not do so and instead cited ignorance in the year 2009 to request for grant of pension including family pension-cum-gratuity by writing the said letter to the District Inspector of Schools (Dakshin Dinajpur).
After considering the submissions made by the learned Advocates for the parties and upon perusing the instant writ petition, this Court is of the view that even if there is an enforceable legal right, in order to have such right enforced it has to be brought to the writ Court's notice at the earliest available opportunity and not after twenty-seven years, as is apparent in the instant case. Although the laws of limitation are not strictly applicable in respect of proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a person who seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus must try and establish his/her enforceable legal right before the writ Court at the earliest available opportunity. One cannot simply cite ignorance to justify sleeping over one's right for years together. Neither can one rely on a correspondence made in the year 2009 with regard to a cause which arose decades ago, obviously in contemplatation of approaching this Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, on a future date. The writ Court ought not to come to the rescue of a litigant who carries such a baggage of laches.
For reasons stated above, I am afraid that the writ petitioner is not entitled to any discretionary relief which is available to her as a citizen of India under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.;
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.