Dismissed

Garrison Engineer Deepatoli through Major Nitin Dhadwal v. Smt Umrawati Devi

Jharkhand HC13 Jun 2024MA/446/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In M.A. No. 446 of 2023, the High Court at Ranchi dismissed a miscellaneous appeal seeking condonation of a 277-day delay. The bench held that the appellant, a government instrumentality, failed to provide a plausible explanation for the delay, relying only on internal bureaucratic delays which are insufficient under law. Consequently, both the interlocutory application and the main appeal were di

What did the court decide?

The interlocutory application for condonation of delay and the main miscellaneous appeal are dismissed. The Court directed the release of the compensation amount deposited.

Garrison Engineer Deepatoli through Major Nitin… — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI M.A. No. 446 of 2023

¶2

Garrison Engineer, Deepatoli, Ranchi through Major Nitin Dhadwal

¶3

… … Appellant

¶4

Versus

¶5

Smt. Umrawati Devi

¶6

Ajit Kumar Singh

¶7

Premjit Kumar Singh

¶8

Amarjit Kumar Singh

¶9

Union of India, Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi

¶10

Commander Works Engineer Military Engineering Service, Deepatoli, Ranchi … … Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶12

For the Appellant : Mr. Ravi Prakash, CGC For the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 : Mrs. Prerna Jhunjhunwala, AC to Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate

¶13

-----

¶14

12/13.06.2024 The present miscellaneous appeal has been filed against the order dated 03.01.2023 passed by the Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation-cum-Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi in W.C. Case No. 19 of 2016 filed under Section 4(a) of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, whereby the appellant has been directed to deposit Rs.17,98,478/- along with simple interest thereon @ 12% per annum from the date of death of the deceased till the date of payment as compensation amount to the respondents namely, Umrawati Devi and Amarjit Kumar Singh.

¶15

I.A. No. 11570 of 2023

¶16

2. The present interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of the appellant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 277 days in filing the present appeal.

¶17

3. Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned CGC appearing on behalf of the appellant, while submitting that the delay caused in preferring

¶18

¶19

the present appeal may be condoned, refers to relevant paragraphs

¶20

of the present interlocutory application, which read as under:

¶21

“4. That it is submitted that the Garrison Engineer, Deepatoli has intimated to HQ, CWE, Ranchi vide letter dated 12.01.2023 about the order dated 03.01.2023 passed by learned Labour Court, Ranchi for direction to file appeal. Thereafter, HQ, CWE, Ranchi vide letter dated 14.01.2023 has intimated to HQ, Chief Engineer, Jabalpur Zone for filing the appeal.

¶22

5. That it is submitted that CWE, Ranchi vide letter dated 23.02.2023 HQ, CWE, Ranchi has been intimated by HQ, Chief Engineer, Jabalpur Zone for filing correction appeal and accordingly, a modification petition has been filed on 02.03.2023 by way of Review Petition but the same has been dismissed vide order dated 10.04.2023.

¶23

6. That it is further submitted that the petitioner’s office has intimated to HQ, CWE, Ranchi and seeking permission to deposit the compensation amount in the learned Labour Court, Ranchi vide letter dated 08.05.2023 and accordingly, the entire compensation amount has been deposited.

¶24

7. That it is submitted that vide letter dated 19.12.2023, the petitioner has been directed to file appeal before the Hon’ble High Court, Ranchi.

¶25

8. That it is submitted that accordingly the appeal has been drafted and filed today after necessary official formalities and necessary paper work.”

¶26

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 4 submits that the aforesaid reasons assigned for condonation of delay in filing the present appeal clearly suggest the casual approach of the appellant in taking statutory recourse against the impugned award which otherwise does not warrant any interference and hence, the present interlocutory application deserves to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the issue of limitation. The Court of Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation-cum-Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi passed the impugned award in W.C. No. 19 of 2016 on 03.01.2023.

¶27

¶28

According to the appellant, a modification application was thereafter filed by it before the said court on 02.03.2023 which was dismissed vide order dated 10.04.2023. Subsequently, the appellant’s office intimated Headquarter, CWE, Ranchi and sought permission to deposit the compensation amount in the Labour Court, Ranchi vide letter dated 08.05.2023 and accordingly, the entire compensation amount was deposited. The said fact has been stated by the appellant in paragraph no. 6 of the present interlocutory application as quoted hereinabove.

¶29

6. It, however, appears from paragraph no. 7 of the present interlocutory application that vide letter dated 19.12.2023 issued by the Headquarters, Chief Engineer, Jabalpur Zone, Jabalpur, the appellant was directed to file appeal before this Court. Thus, no explanation has been given with respect to the time consumed from 08.05.2023 to 19.12.2023 i.e., for more than 7 months. Not assigning any reason for the time consumed during the said period draws adverse inference and suggests laxity on the part of the appellant i.e., Garrison Engineer, Deepatoli, Ranchi.

¶30

7. It is trite law that the State has the strict liability to explain the delay caused in taking statutory recourse. Movement of file from one table to another or one office to another otherwise cannot be said to be justified reason for committing delay in preferring statutory appeal.

¶31

8. In the case of “Postmaster General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr.” reported in (2012) 3 SCC 563 ,

¶32

the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:

¶33

¶34

“28. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody, including the Government.

¶35

29. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bona fide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few.

¶36

30. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay. Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay.”

¶37

9. Thus, the state government or its instrumentality

¶38

cannot be allowed to move before the courts at any time ignoring the period of limitation prescribed under law. The government cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation particularly when the department possesses competent persons familiar with court proceedings. The delay cannot be condoned mechanically in the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation. The claim for condonation of delay made by the

¶39

¶40

government on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including the government and unless the government has reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there has been bonafide effort made by it, the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red tape in the process cannot be accepted. The government departments are under special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment.

¶41

10. Considering that the appellant has not appropriately explained the delay of 277 days committed in filing the present appeal, the same cannot be condoned.

¶42

11. I.A. No. 11570 of 2023 is accordingly dismissed.

¶43

12. Since I.A. No. 11570 of 2023 seeking condonation of

¶44

delay has already been dismissed, the appeal is also dismissed accordingly.

¶45

13. The Court of Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation-cum-Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi is directed to forthwith release the amount of compensation deposited by the appellant in favour of the claimant/respondent no. 1 after her due identification.

¶46

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶47

Manish

¶48

Garrison Engineer Deepatoli through Major Nitin Dhadwal v. Smt Umrawati Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Garrison Engineer Deepatoli through Major Nitin Dhadwal v. Smt Umrawati Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rashi Narayan Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sahid Anwar Vs State of Jharkhand

Sant Tulsi Apartment through Its Developer Kavita Prasad Vs Ranchi Municipal Corporation

Smt Sweety Verma Vs the Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.

Ajit Jaiswal Vs M/S United India Insurance Co. Ltd. through Its Divisional Manager

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. through Its Legal Claims Head East Sri Jitendra Kumar Pandit Vs Mithlesh Kumar