The Deputy Development Commissioner-Cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Hazaribagh, Vs Urmila Devi

¶1

2025:JHHC:19133-DB

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

L.P.A. No. 259 of 2025

¶4

The Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Hazaribagh, P.O. & P.S. and District-Hazaribagh. 2. The District Engineer, Zila Parishad, Hazaribagh, P.O. & P.S. and District- Hazaribagh. ... ... Appellants

¶5

Versus

¶6

Urmila Devi, aged about 70 years, Wife of Late Krishna Murari, Resident of Fateh Singh Ki Dhani, Back side of stadium, P.O. & villageBhondsi, P.S.- Bhondsi, District- Gurgaon (Haryana).

¶7

The State of Jharkhand

¶8

The Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, P.O. + P.S. & - DistrictHazariabagh. ... Respondents

¶9

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶11

¶12

For the Appellants : Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Suraj Prakash, AC to SC-VII.

¶13

C.A.V. On: 07.07.2025 Pronounced On: 15.07.2025

¶14

Per M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.

¶15

I.A. No. 6101 of 2025 in/and L.P.A. No. 259 of 2025

¶16

This application is filed by the applicants under Section 5 of

¶17

the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone delay of 768 days in filing the Letters Patent Appeal challenging the judgment dt.04.01.2023 of the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 6011 of 2019.

¶18

It is contended on behalf of the applicants that they had filed a Civil Review No. 31 of 2023 before the learned Single Judge which was also dismissed on 14.02.2025.

¶19

It is contended that the record of the case was then placed by the applicants before the counsel for the Zila Parishad, Hazaribagh and he had given opinion to prefer L.P.A. against the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Thereafter the D.D.C.-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Hazaribagh gave instructions to prepare draft

¶20

-1 of 3-

¶21

2025:JHHC:19133-DB

¶22

L.P.A., and thereafter the L.P.A. was filed on 12.03.2025, and on account of this reason, there was a delay of 768 days which is required to be condoned.

¶23

We may point out that the applicants were challenging the order dt.04.01.2023 in W.P. (S) No. 6011 of 2019 passed by the learned Single Judge by filing this L.P.A. on 12.03.2025 after a delay of 768 days.

¶24

In the said Writ petition in the judgment dt.04.01.2023, the learned Single Judge had noted that the husband of the respondent No.1 had approached this Court previously in C.W.J.C. No. 2618 of 2000 which was disposed of on 08.02.2001 with a direction to pay retiral benefits within one month, failing which the applicants would be liable to pay penal interest @ 8 per cent on the retiral benefits; the retiral benefits were paid to the respondent No. 1 after the death of her husband in 2018, but interest thereon was not paid, and in view of the previous order dt.08.02.2001, the applicants had to pay the said interest within four months.

¶25

In the Review application also, the learned Single Judge rejected the review on 14.02.2025 recording that interest was to be paid in terms of the judgment dt.08.02.2001 in C.W.J.C. No. 2618 of 2000, that he had followed the same judgment while granting relief in W.P.(S) No. 6011 of 2019, and the applicants cannot be permitted to bring on new documents and argue on merits of the case.

¶26

Admittedly, the applicants had not challenged by way of an L.P.A., the order dt. 08.02.2001 in C.W.J.C. No. 2618 of 2000 and had

¶27

-2 of 3-

¶28

2025:JHHC:19133-DB

¶29

allowed it to attain finality. They cannot be permitted to question the direction to pay interest in terms of the said order granted by the learned Single Judge in his judgment dt.04.01.2023 in W.P. (S) No.6011 of 2019 on the ground of bar of res judicata.

¶30

Moreover, the instant L.P.A. was filed with a delay of 768 days challenging the judgment dt.04.01.2023 in W.P. (S) No. 6011 of 2019 and at this distance of time, notwithstanding the filing of a review petition by the applicants, such an inordinate delay to file L.P.A. against the judgment in W.P. (S) No. 6011 of 2019 cannot be condoned.

¶31

Therefore, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the L.P.A. is dismissed not only on ground of delay but also on merits.

¶32

(M. S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)

¶33

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶34

APK

¶35

-3 of 3-

The Deputy Development Commissioner-Cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Hazaribagh, v. Urmila Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Deputy Development Commissioner-Cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Hazaribagh, v. Urmila Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhumi Adhigrahan Visthapan Avam Punarvas Kisan Samiti through Its President Gaurav Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand Represented through the Chief Secretary

Ms Super Smelters Limited through Its Authorised Signatory Cum a G M Shri Kapil Muni Pandey Vs the Central Coalfields Limited through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Ms Raj Construction through Raj Kumar Yadav Vs the Union of India through Principal Chief Commissioner of Central Tax

The State of Jharkhand through Its Secretary, Road Construction Department Vs Kumod Kumar Thakur

M/S Bhagwan Stone Works, through Its Authorized Signatory / Partner Namely Bhagwan Bhagat, Vs the State of Jharkhand, Represented through the Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology

The State of Jharkhand Vs Srinivas Rao