Virender Singh, C.J. - (1.) Undoubtedly, the appellant -writ petitioner cannot now ask for compassionate appointment on account of delay and laches on his part, as the father of the appellant died in March, 1978 after he was declared medically unfit by the Medical Board of respondent -CCL in March, 1977 however, so far as, the other dues are concerned, if those are admissible, should flow towards the appellant without any waste of time. The prayer before the Writ Court was also in respect of payment of C.M.P.F., gratuity, arrears, bonus, etc., payable to the father of the appellant. It is well -settled that the employer cannot deny payment of statutory dues such as pension, gratuity etc. on the ground of delay in raising claim for payment. In "S.K. Mastan Bee v/s. General Manager, South Central Railways and another, reported in : (2003) 1 SCC 184 : (2002 AIR SCW 4856), a plea raised by the respondents that a claim for the pension was raised after more than 20 years, has been rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and it has been held that it is an obligation of the employer to calculate and pay the retiral dues of the employee. Denial of pension to the petitioner is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt with the issue in the following words; 6. "We notice that the appellant's husband was working as a Gangman who died while in service. It is on record that the appellant is an illiterate who at that time did not know of her legal right and had no access to any information as to her right to family pension and to enforce her such right. On the death of the husband of the appellant, it was obligatory for her husband's employer viz. the Railways, in this case to have computed the family pension payable to the appellant and offered the same to her without her having to make a claim or without driving her to a litigation. The very denial of her right to family pension as held by the learned single Judge as well as the Division Bench is an erroneous decision on the part of the Railways and in fact amounting to a violation of the guarantee assured to the appellant under Article 21 of the Constitution. The factum of the appellant's lack of resources to approach the legal forum timely is not disputed by the Railways. The question then arises on facts and circumstances of this case, was the Appellate Bench justified in restricting the past arrears of pension to a period much subsequent to the death of the appellant's husband on which date she had legally become entitled to the grant of pension? In this case as noticed by us hereinabove, the learned single Judge had rejected the contention of delay put forth by the Railways and taking note of the appellant's right to pension and the denial of the same by the Railways illegally considered it appropriate to grant the pension with retrospective effect from the date on which it became due to her. The Division Bench also while agreeing with the learned single Judge observed that the delay in approaching the Railways by the appellant for the grant of family pension was not fatal, in spite of the same it restricted the payment of family pension from a date on which the appellant issued a legal notice to the Railways i.e. on 1 -4 -1992. We think on the facts of this case inasmuch as it was an obligation of the Railways to have computed the family pension and offered the same to the widow of its employee as soon as it became due to her and also in view of the fact that her husband was only a Gangman in the Railways who might not have left behind sufficient resources for the appellant to agitate her rights and also in view of the fact that the appellant is an illiterate, the learned single Judge, in our opinion, was justified in granting the relief to the appellant from the date from which it became due to her, that is the date of the death of her husband. Consequently, we are of the considered opinion that the Division Bench fell in error in restricting that period to a date subsequent to 1 -4 -1992."
(2.) Let this aspect be considered by the respondent -CCL within eight weeks only from today and payment of the admissible dues shall be made to the appellant within four weeks thereafter, failing which the appellant shall be at liberty to knock at the door of this Court for initiating contempt proceeding. The appeal on hand stands disposed of accordingly.;