Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:118293 Court No. - 52 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9969 of 2025 Petitioner :- Smt. Nattho Devi @ Bageshwari Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bhanu Kumar Ratnakar,Mohd. Monis Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ram Prasad Dubey Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J. Heard Mr. Bhanu Kumar Ratnakar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ram Prasad Dubey, learned counsel for respondent nos.3 & 4 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. The writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:- "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents authorities to release the pension of the petitioner from the year 2020 along with interest. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no.2 to decide representation of the petitioner dated 15.04.2025 pending before him expeditiously within stipulated period." Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that husband of the petitioner, namely, Bhoop Singh Sagar, was initially appointed as an Assistant Teacher in Primary School and retired on 30.06.2008 from Primary Vidyalaya, Sahavar Shah, Block-Asafpur, Budaun. He started receiving his pension. He passed away in the year 2018. After the death of Bhoop Singh Sagar, his first wife started receiving family pension. After some time, first wife of the petitioner died on 15.03.2020, after which the second wife of Bhoop Singh Sagar set up her claim for family pension. After coming to know about the aforesaid, an objection was raised by married daughter of the first wife, as a result of which the family pension of the petitioner has been stopped. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is entitled for the family pension, being the second wife of Bhoop Singh Sagar (deceased), therefore, a direction may be issued to the respondents to pay family pension to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that petitioner has also moved representation before respondent no.2 but nothing has been done till date. Learned Standing Counsel and learned counsel for the respondent- BSA, submit that the petitioner being second wife is not entitled for the relief as prayed. They further submit that first wife of Bhoop Singh Sagar (deceased) had already been receiving family pension. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner has produced such certificates for being entitled for the claim. Even otherwise there is delay in filing the petition, which has not been explained. It is a settled position of law that the person, who is not vigilant and dormant about his right, cannot be allowed to agitate his right as has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman and Managing Director & Ors. Vs. Smt. Parden Oraon reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 299. The time-barred cases should not be entertained by Courts as the rights, which have accrued to others by reason of delay in approaching the Court, cannot be allowed to be disturbed unless there is a reasonable explanation for the delay. The vested rights of the parties should not be disrupted at the instance of a person, who is a guilty of culpable negligence. The Privy Council in General Fire and Life Assurance Corporation Ltd. Vs. Janmahomed Abdul Rahim, AIR 1941 PC 6, relied upon the writings of Mr. Mitra in Tagore Law Lectures 1932, wherein it has been said that "a law of limitation and prescription may appear to operate harshly and unjustly in a particular case, but if the law provides for a limitation, it is to be enforced even at the risk of hardship to a particular party as the Judge cannot, on applicable grounds, enlarge the time allowed by the law, postpone its operation, or introduce exceptions not recognised by law." In N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy, reported in (1998) 7 SCC 133, the Apex Court explained the scope of limitation and condonation of delay, observing as under:- "The primary function of a Court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice. The time-limit fixed for approaching the Court in different situations is not because on the expiry of such time a bad cause would transform into a good cause. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. The law of limitation is thus founded on public policy." In the case of Northern Indian Glass Industries Vs. Jaswant Singh & ors., reported in AIR 2003 SC 234, the Apex Court has held that the High Court cannot ignore the delay and laches in approaching the writ court and there must be satisfactory explanation by the petitioner as how he could not come to the Court well in time. Further in the the case of Printers (Mysore) Ltd. Vs. M.A. Rasheed & Anr. reported in (2004) 4 SCC 460, the Apex Court has held that the High Court should dismiss the writ petition on the ground of unexplained inordinate delay. In view of the aforesaid discussion, no interference is called for. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 21.7.2025 Rahul. Digitally signed by :- RAHUL GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad