Dismissed

Sushil Kumar Mandal v. the State Bank India through Its Chairman and Ors.

Jharkhand HC8 Feb 2018LPA/575/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court rejected an inordinate and unexplained delay in filing an appeal against a writ order directing the bank to decide a claim for ex-gratia payment. The appeal was dismissed on limitation grounds.

What did the court decide?

The prayer for condonation of delay through I.A. No.2989/2017 was rejected, and consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Sushil Kumar Mandal Vs the State Bank India through… — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

L.P.A. No. 575 of 2016

¶3

Sushil Kumar Mandal -----Appellant

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State Bank of India through its Chairman

¶6

Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Patna

¶7

Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Regional Office, Ranchi

¶8

Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Bokaro Steel City Branch, Bokaro

¶9

----- Respondents

¶10

¶11

CORAM: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ratnaker Bhengra

¶12

For the Appellant: Mr. Ravi Kr. Singh, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate

¶13

¶14

07/ 08.02.2018 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the Respondent Bank on the

¶15

prayer for condonation of delay of 1802 days in preferring the present Memo of Appeal through I.A. No. 2989/2017.

¶16

2. Learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition WPS No. 5092/2006

¶17

by order dated 16.11.2011 in the following terms:

¶18

“Counsel for the petitioner submitted that suffice it will be for disposal of this writ petition, if a direction is given to respondents to make payment of ex gratia amount as per the policy floated by the respondents which is at Annexure-A to the counter affidavit and also keep in mind paragraph 4(j) of the counter affidavit. Father of the petitioner expired on 27^th September, 2003 who was serving with the respondents-Bank.

¶19

I have heard counsel for the respondents, who has submitted that they have no much objection, if such a representation is preferred by the petitioner or his mother for getting ex gratia payment as per proforma at Annexure-A.

¶20

In view of this limited submission, I hereby, direct respondents-Bank to decide the claim of the petitioner for getting ex gratia amount as per policy at Annexure-A to the counter affidavit in accordance with law, rules, regulations, policies and Government enforceable orders, applicable to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and practicable, preferably within a period of twelve weeks, from the date of receipt of the representation as per Annexure-A to the counter affidavit from the petitioner or his mother. If the amount is found legally payable the same will be paid within a further period of four weeks thereafter.

¶21

In view of the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of.”

¶22

The appellant sat quiet over the matter and after about three years, sought

¶23

review of the order through Civil Review No. 23/2014. Before the Review Court, learned counsel for the appellant had submitted that he wants compassionate appointment and not ex-gratia amount, as per the policy floated by the Respondent Bank dated 16.08.2005 as the father of the petitioner had expired on 27.09.2003

¶24

¶25

when the policy for compassionate appointment was in place. The Learned Review Court was of the view that this point was never argued before the Writ Court. The policy floated by the Respondent dated 16.08.2005 was never under challenge. Learned Single Judge referred to the principles laid down in several judgments rendered by the Apex Court on the exercise of review jurisdiction and came to an opinion that there is no error on the face of record. The Review Application was accordingly dismissed by order dated 08.09.2016. Thereafter, the writ petitioner preferred present appeal on 13.12.2016 inter-alia on the ground that the Learned Single Judge ought to have noticed that the appellant had not made any prayer for getting ex-gratia lump-sum amount, as per 2005 policy of the Respondent. Further grounds in support of the main grounds have been taken.

¶26

The appellant has sought condonation of huge delay of 1802 days in preferring the present Memo of Appeal, stating that he was not aware of the order dated 16.11.2011 and his counsel could not intimate him about the same. Only after he inquired about the status of the case, that he came to know about this disposal on 16.11.2011. He thereafter pursued the Review Application and when the Review Application was dismissed, he preferred the present appeal. He seeks condonation of delay in the interest of justice.

¶27

Learned counsel for the Respondent Bank has strongly opposed the prayer. He submits that originally, the application for compassionate appointment of the petitioner in lieu of death of his father was decided on merits, as per the prevalent policy in place. However, during course of hearing of the writ petition, conscious prayer was made to direct the Respondents to consider his representation for payment of ex-gratia amount, as per the policy floated by the Respondents at Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. It was in these circumstances that the direction to dispose of the representation of the petitioner was passed by the Learned Single Judge and if found favour, the amount legally payable should be paid within a period of four weeks thereafter. The appellant has not been able to explain the huge delay

¶28

in approaching the Review Court and thereafter in filing the present Memo of Appeal. The appellant has only been trying to take a chance. If the delay is inordinate and unexplained, it does not deserve to be condoned.

¶29

We have considered the submissions of the counsel for the parties and the attendant circumstances noted herein-above. We find lack of diligence on the part of the appellant in assailing the order of Learned Single Judge passed in presence of his counsel even if he was aggrieved by the same. The appellant took three years to file Civil Review petition and even after dismissal of Civil Review petition on 08.09.2016, this Memo of Appeal was filed on 13.12.2016. Discounting the period during which Civil Review petition was pending also, the present Memo of Appeal suffers from an inordinate and unexplained delay of more than three years. Apart from the above, it seems that a new prayer is sought to be made after the writ petition was disposed of only at the instance of the writ petitioner for consideration of his representation in the light of the policy of the Bank for grant of ex-gratia amount in case of death of the employee in harness. We are, therefore, not satisfied that this huge unexplained delay can be condoned on any grounds.

¶30

Learned counsel for the appellant at the end submits that the Respondent Bank may be directed to consider the representation of the petitioner in the light of the order passed by the Learned Single Judge. We do not find any reason to doubt that in case such a representation is made even belatedly, it would be examined by the Respondent bank, as per the direction of the Learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the prayer made through I.A. No.2989/2017 is rejected. Consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed on the point of limitation.

¶31

( Aparesh Kumar Singh, J )

¶32

( Ratnaker Bhengra, J)

¶33

Ranjeet/

Sushil Kumar Mandal v. the State Bank India through Its Chairman and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushil Kumar Mandal v. the State Bank India through Its Chairman and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sudhir Kumar Manki Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Somnath Biswas Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Damodar Singh Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Sanju Devi Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Radhe Krishna Prasad Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

All India Prograssive Womens Association Aipwa Vs Don Bosko Tech Don Bosko Yuva Kendra and Otehrs