Aditya Kumar Tiwari v. State

' g6 Aged 'l'iw'ari, abdut 4O "Smt.

resident y'ears, Tiwari, Kumar L Yashwantin of late Aditya r daughter 3"

i § of Godhanpur, Ward No. 3, Ambikapur, Districtf I Surguja(C.&)"

§

HIGH COURT'OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR '

I S.B'.:

HON'BLE SHRI NAVIN SINHA, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE __.._'.-_.._'_-__.._-__.'__-_-__..__-_~......... - I WRIT PETITION (SING. 50(37 OF 2005 PETITIONFR Smt. Yashwantin Tiwari

Versus

State of Madhya Prades'h and others IiESbONDEms eep Johri, Advocatemfgr the Petitioner.

d '

e Petitioner and the State.

$ J "

t"?

2.

I 'original _ i '

wrat"

t£t2tmtz W 4"'I-Efri Aditya Kumar Tiwari died during the pehdehcy of writ apigitcl yion 'ailnd was allowed to be substituted by his legal heir considering that claims the Writ application had fmancial implications'for the family of the deceased. 3.

Learned Counsel for Petitioner submits from '

communication dated 11.12.1992 of the Joint Registrar, Department of V Co-operative, Bilaspur Division, that earlier Handloom'

Cooperative Debartments were one Government entity. The deceased was appointed in 1968 at a time whenthe two Depa'tgtments constituted one \

gL entity of the State Government.

In 1968, the Handioom Department was bifurcated the deceased was posted as Junior Supervisor Handioom Department from where he superannuated on 31.01.1992.

é» While:caicuiating his retiral dues, the authorities wrongly excluded the period of service from to 1968 and made the calculation only for the period of service in the Handioom Department. Thus, it is submitted that it is gross arbitrariness creating an artihcial distinction without p ropriately impleaded as a party gw?} rat .to be apportioned under Section 49 of 5.- The Court is not i§glinleid t'olf'gject the writ application simplicitor on the ground of delay for institution of the writ application by the deceased in 2005 after superannuation on 31.01.1992. There is no invariable rule that a writ petition must be rejected on ground of delay only irrespective of other considerations. Condoning the delay is a matter of discretion to be exercised in the facts of each case. No third party rights have accrued in the meantime .

6.

relief. sought is limited for a part of the retiral benefits only by

g3 taking into consideration the period of- service from 1955 to 1968 only;

The empioyee has died and his wife has aiso expired. The only limited question now is with regard to the arrears for gratuity and provident fund.

7.

l'n the entirety of the facts of the case, the Court declines to reject the case on the ground of delay only as injustice to the deceased is if Handloom Co-operative $3 hey were separated, nonetheles Departments 't s htigreqwred to be counted Directions dues of deceased under é él} i ng into conSIderation period of gratutty prOVIdent fug f 8% ;

serVIce from 1955 to deceased wag: Workigglglat Bilaspur.

So far question of 8_ apportionment under Section 49 of the Madhya Pradesh Reroganisation Act, is concerend, it is responsibility of State of Chhattisgarh to appropriately follow up matters with the State of Madhya Pradesh.

facts circumstances of the case, it cannot. be a defence to the State of Madhya Pradesh that it was not heard in view of notice issued to them duly served. The order to be complied / with by payment of the legitimate dues within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt and/or production of certmed copy of'this

order.

d 9.

The application stans disposed.

Sd/- Acting Chief Justice