# Din Bandhu Ram v. Union of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 2 ILRA 1680
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-12-02
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 19257 of 2019
- **Bench:** Sudhir Agarwal, Rajeev Misra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/din-bandhu-ram-v-union-of-india-ors-45206
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Disability pension -
Constitution of India - Article 226 -
Armed Forces Tribunal Act ,2007 - Army
Rules, 1954 - Rule 13(3)(IV) - Undue
delay and laches are relevant factors in
exercising equitable jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India -
2 All. Din Bandhu Ram Vs. Union of India & Ors.
1681
order of Tribunal non suiting petitioner on
merits - cannot be said to be faulty -
circumstances in which, within six months of
his
recruitment,
petitioner
was
found
suffering from ailment of Schizophrenia -
petitioner do not satisfy the requirement of
disability pension - no merit in writ
petition.(Para 6,10)

Petitioner, enrolled in Indian Army - suffered some
problem diagnosed as "Schizophrenia" - medically
held invalid from service under Rule 13(3)(IV) of
Army Rules, 1954 and was discharged - request for
disability pension - declined by Principal Controller of
Defence Account (Pension) - ground - medical
disability suffered by petitioner was neither
attributable nor aggravated to military service -
order attained finality - petitioner did not challenge
the same by filing any appeal for more than 22
years - petitioner could not explain delay and laches
either before Tribunal or before this Court.(Para 3,5)

Held:- The petitioner is admittedly guilty of undue
delay and laches which has not been explained at all
- For granting relief under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, laches is an important factor
disentitling a litigant for any relief.(Para-9)

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-7)

List of cases cited:-

## Text

1680 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
that he has received scanned copy in the
month of November, 2019. The pleadings
in this regard lacks material fact as to the
date on which he has received scanned
copy and the mode by which scanned copy
was sent to him. Thus, the contention of
the learned counsel for the petitioner that
no cut off date is provided by this Court
for making application for re-evaluation is
misconceived as the process of reevaluation cannot be allowed to be
continued to infinity.

20. While the judgment was
reserved, the counsel for the petition has
placed two judgments; one in Special
Appeal No. 620 of 2019 (Priya Sharma
Vs. State of U.P.) decided on 18.12.2019,
and the other judgment in Writ-A No.
19760 of 2019 (Satish Kumar Pandey &
Others) decided on 07.01.2019 to contend
that the petitioner is also entitled to the
benefit of the aforesaid judgment.

21. The judgment Special Appeal
No. 620 of 2019 has been rendered in
different factual context wherein the writ
petition filed by the appellant in special
appeal was dismissed before the judgment
of this Court in Aniruddh Narayan
Shukla (supra) case. In the said backdrop,
this Court has extended the benefit of the
judgment
of
this
Court
in
Writ-A
No.14509 of 2019, thus, the judgment of
this Court in Special Appeal No.620 of
2019 is of no help to the petitioner.

22. So far as the other judgment
relied upon by counsel for the petitioner in
Writ-A No. 19760 of 2019 is concerned,
the same has been passed on the basis of
judgment of this Court in Special Appeal
No.620 of 2019, but this aspect that
judgment of Special Appeal No. 620 of
2019 has been rendered in different factual
context has not been placed before the
court. Further, the said judgment has also
not considered the judgment of this Court
in Writ-A No.17887 of 2019 (Manju vs.
State of U.P. & Anr.) decided on
05.12.2019,
wherein
this
Court
has
dismissed the writ petition filed by one
such candidate, who has approached this
Court after the time of one month granted
by this Court in Aniruddh Narayan
Shukla (supra) case has expired. Thus, the
judgment of this Court in Writ-A No.
19760 of 2019 does not come to aid of the
petitioner.

23. Thus, in view of the said fact, the
writ
petition
lacks
merit
and
is,
accordingly, dismissed.
----------
(2020)02ILR A1680

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.12.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.
THE HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J.

Writ A No. 19257 of 2019

Din Bandhu Ram ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Col. Ram Achal Pandey (Retd.)

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I.

A. Service Law - Disability pension -
Constitution of India - Article 226 -
Armed Forces Tribunal Act ,2007 - Army
Rules, 1954 - Rule 13(3)(IV) - Undue
delay and laches are relevant factors in
exercising equitable jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India -
2 All. Din Bandhu Ram Vs. Union of India & Ors.
1681
order of Tribunal non suiting petitioner on
merits - cannot be said to be faulty -
circumstances in which, within six months of
his
recruitment,
petitioner
was
found
suffering from ailment of Schizophrenia -
petitioner do not satisfy the requirement of
disability pension - no merit in writ
petition.(Para 6,10)

Petitioner, enrolled in Indian Army - suffered some
problem diagnosed as "Schizophrenia" - medically
held invalid from service under Rule 13(3)(IV) of
Army Rules, 1954 and was discharged - request for
disability pension - declined by Principal Controller of
Defence Account (Pension) - ground - medical
disability suffered by petitioner was neither
attributable nor aggravated to military service -
order attained finality - petitioner did not challenge
the same by filing any appeal for more than 22
years - petitioner could not explain delay and laches
either before Tribunal or before this Court.(Para 3,5)

Held:- The petitioner is admittedly guilty of undue
delay and laches which has not been explained at all
- For granting relief under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, laches is an important factor
disentitling a litigant for any relief.(Para-9)

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-7)

List of cases cited:-

1. West Bengal Vs. Tarun K. Roy and others ,
2004 (1) SCC 347

2. Chairman U.P. Jal Nigam and another Vs.
Jaswant Singh and another , 2006 (11) SCC
464

3. New Delhi Municipal Council Vs. Pan Singh
and others , J.T.2007 (4) SC 253,

4. M/S Lipton India Ltd. And others vs. Union
of India and others, J.T. 1994 (6) SC 71

5. M.R. Gupta Vs. Union of India and others ,
1995 (5) SCC 628

6. K.V. Rajalakshmiah Setty Vs. State of Mysore
, AIR 1961 SC 993,

7. State of Orissa Vs. Pyari Mohan Samantaray
and others , AIR 1976 SC 2617
8. State of Orissa and others Vs. Arun Kumar
Patnaik and others 1976 (3) SCC 579

9. Shiv Dass Vs. Union of India and others AIR
2007 SC 1330= 2007(1) Supreme 455

10. Chunvad Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and
others, 2008 (4) ESC 2423.

11. C. Jacob vs. Director of Geology and Mining
and another, 2008 (10) SCC 115

12. Union of India and others vs. M.K. Sarkar,
2010 (2) SCC 58

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.
& Hon'ble Rajeev Misra, J.)

1. Heard Col. Ram Achal Pandey,
Advocate for applicant and Sri S.K. Rai,
Advocate for respondents.

2. This writ petition under Article
226 of the Constitution of India has arisen
from judgment and order dated 26.10.2018
whereby petitioner's Transfer Application
No. 1187 of 2010 has been dismissed by
Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench,
Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as
"Tribunal").

3. It appears that petitioner, who was
enrolled in Indian Army on 02.05.1979,
suffered some problem diagnosed as
"Schizophrenia" on account whereof he
was medically held invalid from service
w.e.f. 18.03.1980 under Rule 13(3)(IV) of
Army Rules, 1954 and was discharged.
His request for disability pension was
declined
by
Principal
Controller
of
Defence Account (Pension), Allahabad
vide order dated 17.01.1981 on the ground
that
medical
disability
suffered
by
petitioner was neither attributable nor
aggravated to military service. Said order
attained finality as petitioner did not
challenge the same by filing any appeal. It
1682 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
is only in 2003 he filed Writ Petition No.
49882 of 2003 seeking following reliefs:

"(i) to issue a writ order or
direction in nature of certiorari to quash
the impugned order dated 17.1.81 passed
by P.C.D.A. (Pension) (Respondent No. 2),
through his letter No. G3/80/8846/VI
which is not served to the petitioner till the
date of filing and the order dated 3.3.1993
passed by Record Officer, the Maratha
Light Infantry, Belgaum-9.

(ii) to issue a writ order or
direction in nature of mandamus directing
the respondents to take any decision for
petitioner's
rehabilitation/
disability
pension/ financial assistance.

(iii) to issue a writ order or
direction which this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper under the facts and
circumstances of the case.

(iv) to award the cost of the writ
petition to the petitioner."

4. After enactment and enforcement
of Armed Forces Tribunal, aforesaid writ
petition was transferred to Tribunal and
renumbered as Transfer Application No.
1187 of 2010. Tribunal has found that
petitioner was enrolled in Indian Army in
1979. He was diagnosed for suffering of
Schizophrenia on 07.11.1979, i.e., almost
within six months from the date of
enrollment
in
military
service.
Consequently he was declared invalid for
military service by medical board on
19.03.1980.
In
these
facts
and
circumstances Tribunal found that there
was nothing to show that petitioner's
medical invalidity was either on account of
rendering service in army nor there was
anything to show that it was aggravated
due to Military Service for the reason that
he has worked only for almost six months
when aforesaid disease was discovered
and that too while he was undergoing
basic recruitment training at Maratha Light
Infantry Regimental Centre, Belgaum and
not even posted for active service at any
hard place. Tribunal, therefore, rejected the
same.

5. Besides the fact stated by Tribunal
in the impugned judgment, we also find
that petitioner was invalidated in 1980. His
claim for disability pension was rejected
on 17.01.1981. He did not challenge
aforesaid order dated 17.01.1981 before
any appropriate forum for more than 22
years and this delay and laches has not
been explained by petitioner either before
Tribunal or before this Court.

6. Undue delay and laches are
relevant factors in exercising equitable
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. Following the cases
of Government of West Bengal Vs. Tarun
K. Roy and others 2004(1) SCC 347 and
Chairman U.P. Jal Nigam and another
Vs. Jaswant Singh and another 2006(11)
SCC 464, the Apex Court in New Delhi
Municipal Council Vs. Pan Singh and
others J.T.2007(4) SC 253, observed that
after a long time the writ petition should
not have been entertained even if the
petitioners are similarly situated and
discretionary jurisdiction may not be
exercised
in
favour
of
those
who
approached the Court after a long time. It
was held that delay and laches were
relevant factors for exercise of equitable
jurisdiction. In M/S Lipton India Ltd.
And others vs. Union of India and
others, J.T. 1994(6) SC 71 and M.R.
Gupta Vs. Union of India and others
1995(5) SCC 628 it was held that though
there was no period of limitation provided
for filing a petition under Article 226 of
Constitution of India, ordinarily a writ
2 All. Din Bandhu Ram Vs. Union of India & Ors.
1683
petition should be filed within reasonable
time. In K.V. Rajalakshmiah Setty Vs.
State of Mysore, AIR 1961 SC 993, it
was said that representation would not be
adequate explanation to take care of delay.
Same view was reiterated in State of
Orissa Vs. Pyari Mohan Samantaray
and others AIR 1976 SC 2617 and State
of Orissa and others Vs. Arun Kumar
Patnaik and others 1976(3) SCC 579 and
the said view has also been followed
recently in Shiv Dass Vs. Union of India
and others AIR 2007 SC 1330= 2007(1)
Supreme 455 and New Delhi Municipal
Council (supra). The aforesaid authorities
of the Apex Court has also been followed
by this Court in Chunvad Pandey Vs.
State of U.P. and others, 2008(4) ESC
2423.

7. In C. Jacob vs. Director of
Geology and Mining and another,
2008(10) SCC 115 Court observed that
Courts and Tribunals proceed on the
assumption that every citizen deserves a
reply to his representation. It also observed
that a mere direction to consider and
dispose of the representation does not
involve any 'decision' on rights and
obligations of parties. Little do they realize
the consequences of such a direction to
'consider'.
If
the
representation
is
considered and accepted, the ex-employee
gets a relief, which he would not have got
on account of the long delay, all by reason
of the direction to 'consider'. If the
representation is considered and rejected,
the ex employee files an application/ writ
petition, not with reference to the original
cause of action may be of 10 or 20 years
back but by treating the order of rejection
passed after a decade or two or more from
the date of original cause of action, as a
fresh cause of action. In such cases
normally a prayer is made for quashing of
order of rejection of representation and
they further to grant relief as claimed in
representation. The Tribunals/ Courts
routinely
entertain
such
applications/
petitions
ignoring
the
huge
delay
preceding the representation and proceed
to examine the claim on merits and grant
relief. In this manner, the bar of limitation
or the laches gets obliterated or ignored.
Deprecating it and holding that such order
passed on representation will not furnish a
fresh cause of action and revive a stale or
dead claim, Supreme Court in para 10 said
as under:

"10. Every representation to the
government for relief, may not be replied
on merits. Representations relating to
matters which have become stale or
barred by limitation, can be rejected on
that ground alone, without examining the
merits of the claim. In regard to
representations
unrelated
to
the
department, the reply may be only to
inform that the matter did not concern the
department or to inform the appropriate
department.
Representations
with
incomplete particulars may be replied by
seeking relevant particulars. The replies to
such representations, cannot furnish a
fresh cause of action or revive a stale or
dead claim. "

8. In Union of India and others vs.
M.K. Sarkar, 2010(2) SCC 58 Court said
that a belated representation with regard to
statutory or dead issue if considered or
decided, in compliance with a direction by
Court/ Tribunal to do so, the date of such
decision
cannot
be
considered
as
furnishing a fresh cause of action for
reviving the 'dead' or time barred issue.
Issue of limitation or delay and laches
should be considered with reference to the
original cause of action and not with
1684 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
reference to the date on which an order is
passed in compliance with a Court's
direction. Neither a Court's direction to
consider a representation issued without
examining the merits, nor a decision given
in compliance with such direction, will
extend the limitation, or erase the delay
and laches.

9. The petitioner is admittedly guilty
of undue delay and laches which has not
been explained at all. For granting relief
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, laches is an important factor
disentitling a litigant for any relief, as
discussed above.

10. Even otherwise, order of Tribunal
non suiting petitioner on merits also
cannot
be
said
to
be
faulty. The
circumstances in which, within six months
of his recruitment, petitioner was found
suffering from ailment of Schizophrenia,
we do not find that petitioner satisfies the
requirement of disability pension. Hence
we find no merit in writ petition.

11. Dismissed accordingly.
----------
(2020)02ILR A1684

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.12.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Writ A No. 19346 of 2019

Anuj Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ram Asrey Yadav
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Disciplinary proceeding - procedure
established for conducting an enquiry
was not followed - evidences were not
recorded - inquiry report was submitted
based
on
the
charge
sheet
and
petitioner's explanation.

The law is settled with respect to the manner
in which the disciplinary proceedings are to be
undertaken in a matter involving major
punishment. After the issuance of charge sheet
and receipt of a reply, a date, time and venue
of the inquiry have to be fixed. On the
appointed
date
and
time,
whether
the
delinquent employee appears or not, it is for
the establishment to prove its case by
examining evidence in support of the charges.
Mostly, this kind of a charge cannot be
established, unless the establishment examines
and gets their oral evidence recorded. In
addition, if there are certain documentary
evidence on which the establishment whishes
to rely, they have to lead that evidence before
the inquiry officer through their presiding
officer. It is only after the establishment
discharge their onus on the charge that burden
shifts to the delinquent employee, to produce
evidence in support of his case, all of which
would be ultimately evaluated by the inquiry
officer to reach his conclusion, one way or the
other. (para 8)

B. Power of administrative authority - no
jurisdiction to revive the order quashed
by the High Court

An order quashed by any Court, Tribunal or
Judicial Authority can be revived by a
competent court of appellate jurisdiction,
empowered by law to hear and decide an
appeal
from
the
order
quashing
the
administrative
order.
No
administrative
authority is possessed of jurisdiction to revive
an order that has been quashed or set aside by
a Court of competent jurisdiction, while
determining a matter on remand by the Court.
To pass the same order afresh or reach the
same conclusions, on determining a matter
after remand by a Court setting aside the order