8-MCA-407-2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 407 OF 2026 (REVIEW) IN WRIT PETITION NO. 222 OF 2024 (D) (The Municipal Commissioner, Nagpur Municipal Corporation Vs. Dr. Jaiprakash s/o Narayan Zirmire) __________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. Mr. Rohan Chhabra, Counsel for the applicant. Ms. Sakshi Tiwari, Counsel for the non-applicant (appointed). ..... CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE AND ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ. AUGUST 21, 2026 Heard. 2] The operative part of the judgment sought to be reviewed reads as under : “O R D E R i. The Petition is partly allowed in terms of what has been held in Writ Petition No. 6331/2022, and the directions given therein shall be followed. ii. The Respondent/NMC is directed to pay the Petitioner a revised pension as per Government Resolution dated 22.06.2009 from 01.08.2008 within a period of six weeks from the date of this order. If the aforesaid directions are not complied with, the Respondent would be liable to pay the aforesaid amount with interest @ 18% per annum.” 3] As could be seen, the petition was partly allowed in terms of what has been held in Writ Petition No. 6331/2022, and the directions given therein. The Court, then, directed the respondent/NMC (present applicant) to pay the petitioner (present non-applicant) revised pension as per Government Resolution dated 22/6/2009 from 1/8/2008. 8-MCA-407-2026 2 4] The argument is that, the petition under question was filed on 2/1/2024, and the decision rendered by the Division Bench in Writ Petition No. 6331/2022 recognizes monetary relief to the extent of only three years prior to filing petition. Accordingly, it is argued that the relief could have been extended with effect from 2/1/2021, and not from 1/8/2008, as directed by the Court. 5] We have gone through the judgment passed in Writ Petition No. 6331/2022. The relevant portion finds place in paragraph 13 of the judgment, which reads thus : “13. As per the respondent the claim of the petitioner is barred by the limitation as there is a delay and laches in claiming the relief. He also placed reliance on the various judgments referred above. The delay as long as the one occasion in this case would result in the dismissal of the petition on the ground of laches if the cause of action is not continuous. It is no doubt true that the cause of action in case of pensionary benefits continues from month to month but, it is well settled that in case of delay in filing the writ petition beyond the period of 3 years, the monetary relief could be restricted even in case of pensionary benefits only for a period of 3 years preceding the date of filing the writ petition. In cases when the cause of action is not continuous, a writ petition seeking a particular relief would be barred by laches as mere making of representation to an authority would not stop the period of limitation. It is held by the Honourable Apex Court from time to time that monetary relief could be granted for a period of 3 years preceding the date of filing of the writ petition even if the cause of action is continuous. The monetary reliefs payable towards pension are also governed by the same rule. The same ratio is laid down by the Honourable Apex Court in the case of M.R. 8-MCA-407-2026 3 Gupta Vs. Union of India (UOI) and ors. [AIR 1996 SC 669], Jai Dev Gupta Vs. State of H.P. and ors. [AIR 1998 SC 2819], Shiv Dass Vs. Union of India (UOI) and ors. [AIR 2007 SC 1330] and Union of India (UOI) and ors. Vs. Tarsem Singh [(2008)2 SCC (LS) 765]. Thus, considering the Government Resolution which entitles the petitioner for a revised pension as well as the gratuity, the petitioner would be entitled to the arrears of the family pension only for a period of 3 years preceding the date of filing of the writ petition i.e. from 08th September, 2022.” 6] As could be seen, and even otherwise, it is a settled position of law that in case of delay in filing Writ Petition seeking monetary relief beyond period of three years, the relief should be restricted only for a period of three years preceding the date of filing Writ Petition. 7] That being so, the applicant – original respondent is right in contending that the relief to the non-applicant – original petitioner could have been extended with effect from 2/1/2021, and not from 1/8/2008. 8] The Review Application is, accordingly, allowed. Writ Petition No. 222/2024 is restored to file. 9] Fees of the Counsel appointed to represent the non-applicant be quantified and paid as per Rules. WRIT PETITION NO. 222/2024 10] List before appropriate Bench. (JUDGE) (JUDGE) Sumit Signed by: Mr. Sumit Agrawal Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 21/08/2026 19:14:28