AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Surya Kant, J.—As per the office report, respondent No. 1 has been served. No one appears on its behalf. As regards to respondent No. 2, the office has reported that notice issued to respondent No. 2 has been received back unserved with the report that "file of petitioner/Smt. Santra is not available in the PPO record of the department". In our considered view, respondent No. 2 also stands served. No one appears on its behalf as well. This letters patent appeal is directed against the order dated 5.12.2012, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the appellant''s petition being hopelessly time barred. It is to be mentioned that the claim in the writ petition pertains to the family pension for the period May, 1984 to 1989. The appellant lost her husband, who was serving as Lineman, on 2.5.1984, but she was granted family pension in the year 1989.
Having regard to the mitigating circumstances, family background, the fact that the claim for pension ordinarily gives rise to a recurring cause of action and that law of limitation as such does not apply to writ proceedings, we allow the present appeal and set aside the order under appeal and remit the case to the learned Single Judge to decide the same on merit. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Single Judge on 5.8.2013.