Roshan Lal vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

M. Srinivasan, C.J.—The Petitioner has combined two causes of action in this writ petition. One relates to his disability pension, which was rejected by the authorities in 1982 and the appeal to the Government was also rejected in 1984. He is now making a claim in this writ petition that the order rejecting the disability pension, Annexure PI, should be quashed. Though there is an appellate order, yet he has not chosen to challenge that order for claiming the relief. As such, this writ petition suffers from suppression of relevant facts, inasmuch as he has made a reference to inter-department communication in August 1982 with regard to sending of document from one department to Anr. department and annexed it as Annexure PJ. We have seen that the appellate order is not Annexure PJ but instead it has been produced by the Respondents as Annexure RD dated 16-9-1984. Hence, the petition suffers from suppressio veri and the Petitioner is not entitled to get any relief on that ground.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has referred to number of judgments of this Court as well as Punjab and Haryana High Court which hold that inspite of delay and laches, jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be exercised by the High Court. It may be so, but we refuse to exercise our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in view of the fact that the claim has become stale and also in view of the fact that the Petitioner has not chosen to place all the relevant facts before this Court in this writ petition.

The other claim made by the Petitioner is against the order of the authorities seeking recovery of excess dearness allowance paid to the Petitioner. He has suppressed the fact that he has been re-employed in Punjab National Bank, and dearness allowance is payable to him for that service. When the authorities found out the same, they asked the Petitioner to refund the same. Admittedly, the Petitioner is still employed In the Punjab National Bank and cannot have dearness allowance at two places. We are convinced that the Petitioner is admittedly re-employed and he is not entitled to the reliefs prayed for.