This bench allowed an interlocutory application condoning a delay of 18 days in filing the appeal. It then dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal, upholding the lower court's dismissal of the writ petition due to a delay of over 27 years in raising the pension claim.
Condonation of 18 days delay in filing appeal; Dismissal of Letters Patent Appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.156 of 2017 In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.673 of 2015
======================================================
Munna Kumar, Son of Late Jugeshwar Mahto, R/o Village Mahawal, P.O. Mahawal, P.S. Motipur, District Muzaffarpur
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
... ... Respondent/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Mani Bhushan Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Suryadeo Yadav-AAG 9 Mr. Prem Ranjan Kumar, AC to AAG IX ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 22-11-2017
Re.: Interlocutory Application No.5183 of 2017
Delay of 18 days in filing of the Letters Patent Appeal is
condoned.
Interlocutory Application stands allowed and disposed of.
Re.: Letters Patent Appeal No.156 of 2017
In dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant on
account of the fact that he kept quite for more than 27 years after attaining majority and raised the claim only at the age of 46 years, the learned Writ Court has not committed any error, particularly in
Patna High Court LPA No.156 of 2017 dt.22-11-2017 2/2
the light of the fact that in the counter affidavit filed by the State Government, it was clearly stated that way back in the year 1983, the leave encashment amount due was calculated and the petitioner was intimated in May, 1983 to give his bank account. Thereafter, the provisional pension was also sanctioned which was paid up to 1985. Thereafter, when the petitioner did not submit requisite paper for confirmation, the same was withdrawn.
Taking note of all the circumstances, we see no reason to make any indulgence into the matter. The appeal is dismissed.
(Rajendra Menon, CJ)
( Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J)
Sunil/-
| AFR/NAFR | NAFR |
|---|---|
| CAV DATE | NA |
| Uploading Date | 22.11.2017 |
| Transmission Date |
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the writ filing claim for pension which was delayed by more than 27 years.
Munna Kumar
The State of Bihar
Rajendra Menon
Anil Kumar Upadhyay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
