http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  1086 of 2008

PETITIONER: DY. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,NAGPUR & ANR

RESPONDENT: MANGAL & ORS

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/02/2008

BENCH: H.K. SEMA & MARKANDEY KATJU

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT

O R D E R CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1086 OF 2008 [Arising out of SLP(C) No.17169/2004]

       Leave granted.  

       Heard the parties.

       This appeal is filed by the State impugning the judgment and order dated 14/11/2003  passed in Writ Petition No.1761/2002.  By the impugned order, the High Court directed  the appellant to grant pension and pensionary benefits to the respondent within a period  of three months from the date of order failing which the arrears of pension shall carry  interest  18% per annum from the date of judgment till repayment of arrears and  thereafter payment of regular monthly pension.

       The respondent is stated to be working as an Assistant Teacher in Shivaji  Mahavidyalaya, Lakhandur.  He obtained voluntary retirement on 30/04/1973. He filed a  Writ Petition No.1761/2002  under  Article  226  of  the  Constitution after  ......2.

- 2 -

almost 30 years of his retirement seeking a mandamus for a direction for payment of  pension and pensionary benefits.  It is now a well-settled principle of law that delay  defeats equity.  The discretionary relief that is granted by the High Court under Article  226 of the Constitution is an equitable relief.  The fact of having approached the High  Court after almost 30 years of retirement itself deserves dismissal on the ground of  laches and negligence without going into the merit.   

       For the reasons afore-stated, the High Court fell into error by entertaining the wri t  petition after enormous delay of almost 30 years.  On this sole ground, the writ petition  was liable to be dismissed without going into the merits.  Consequently, the impugned  order passed by the High Court is not tenable in law.  It is, accordingly, set aside.  The  appeal is allowed.  No costs.