Belated claims for service allowances raised after regularization and retirement are not maintainable under writ jurisdiction.

The petitioner was engaged as an ad hoc peon by UCO Bank in 1990

Following his termination in 1997, industrial litigation led to an Award in 1998 declaring the retrenchment illegal and ordering reinstatement

Subsequent litigation regarding regularization reached the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 10178 of 2018, which set aside a Division Bench order and directed the Bank to regularize the petitioner’s service with all benefits and past services reckoned for retirement

The Bank regularized him in 2019/2020

Upon his retirement, the Bank requested his pension papers in 2023, but the petitioner instead filed this writ petition seeking specific arrears for various allowances (Traveling, Dress, Medical, Cash, etc.)

A prior contempt petition before the Supreme Court regarding these benefits was dismissed in 2026

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to specific operational allowances (traveling, washing, cycle, etc.) for periods where actual discharge of duty is not established

2. Whether the claims for allowances raised several years after regularization and at the stage of retirement are barred by delay and laches

The court applied the principle that service allowances (Traveling, Uniform, and Washing allowances) are contingent upon the actual performance of duties and specific material evidence of work

It further relied on the doctrine of laches and "belated claims," holding that discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be granted to a litigant who sleeps over their rights or fails to provide specific pleadings regarding the duration of service for which benefits are claimed

The Court found that the petitioner’s claims were fundamentally deficient as the writ petition was silent on the specific periods during which he actually discharged duties as a peon

Since allowances like "traveling" and "washing" are tied to active service, they cannot be awarded in a vacuum without proof of work

The Court noted a significant temporal gap: although the petitioner was regularized in 2020 following the Supreme Court's 2018 order, he only raised these specific demands in 2023 when asked to submit retirement papers

The Court reasoned that since the petitioner never claimed these allowances during his active service or immediately following his restoration to service, the claims were afterthoughts raised at the brink of retirement

The lack of satisfactory answers to the Court's queries regarding his actual work periods further undermined the credibility of the claim

The Court concluded that it would not entertain such "belated claims" raised six years after the Supreme Court's direction and only upon the petitioner's retirement; consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition