The Patna High Court dismissed a letters patent appeal filed by the State of Bihar against a single judge order quashing a pension deduction. The court held the appeal time-barred due to unexplained delay of 827 days and principles of laches.
The letters patent appeal was dismissed on grounds of delay and laches.
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.217 of 2019 In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5386 of 2015
======================================================
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
Bharat Kumar Jha, Son of Late Laxmi Narayan Jha, Resident of Village and P.O. Nawada, P.S.- Bahera, District- Darbhanga
... ... Respondent/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Khurshid Alam, AAG 12 Mr. Arun Kumar Bhagat, AC to AAG 12 For the Respondent/s :
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) (The proceedings of the Court are being conducted by Hon’ble the Chief Justice/Hon’ble Judges through Video Conferencing from their residential offices/residences. Also the Advocates and the Staffs joined the proceedings through Video Conferencing from their residences/offices.)
Date : 01-02-2022
This appeal has been filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent Appeal of the Patna High Court Rules, 1916 by the State of Bihar and its authorities against the order dated 23.09.2016 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in CWJC No.5386 of 2015 titled as Bharat Kumar Jha versus The State of Bihar & Ors .
In terms of the impugned order, the learned Single
Patna High Court L.P.A No.217 of 2019 dt.01-02-2022 2/3
Judge quashed the order dated 07.07.2011 (Annexure-14 to the writ petitioner) whereby a sum of Rs.2,63,253/- was ordered to be deducted from the petitioner’s account for pension and gratuity.
Writ petitioner/respondent herein having his track record of unblemished service for more than 30 years superannuated on 28.02.2009 and only thereafter the said amount was deducted, apparently on the ground that at some point of time during his service period, perhaps in the year 1996, his salary was erroneously fixed.
The learned Singe Judge allowed the writ petition holding the action to be impermissible in view of the decision of Hon’ble the Apex Court in State of Punjab and others v. Fariq Mashi (White Washer) and others (2015) 4 SCC 334 .
The impugned judgment dated 23.09.2016 stands challenged by way of the instant appeal filed only on 30.01.2019. The delay of 827 days, in our considered view, remains unexplained. The only explanation being that the matter kept on rotating from one Department to another. Well, that cannot be a reason sufficient enough for condoning the delay, more so in the absence of any explanation forthcoming, explaining each days delay and action taken against the erring
Patna High Court L.P.A No.217 of 2019 dt.01-02-2022 3/3
persons, in the application filed seeking condonation of delay.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed on the ground
of delay and laches.
Interlocutory Application, if any, shall stand disposed of.
(Sanjay Karol, CJ)
( S. Kumar, J)
sujit/-
AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 07.02.2022 Transmission Date
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the letters patent appeal filed after a delay of 827 days should be accepted without condonation of delay being granted.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Punjab and others v. Fariq Mashi (White Washer) and othersReferred¶24
State of Punjab and others v. Fariq Mashi (White Washer) and others (2015) 4 SCC 334 · Who else cites this
State of Bihar and Ors.
Bharat Kumar Jha
Sanjay Karol
S. Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
