Dismissed appeal against Second Appellate Court's decision to grant disability pension to respondent. Court dismissed condonation of 378-day delay as appellant failed to show plausible reasons.
Application for condonation of delay dismissed; appeal dismissed.
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.
Regular Second Appeal No.1525 of 2009(O&M) [ 1 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
...
Civil Misc.No.4573-C of 2009 Regular Second Appeal No.1525 of 2009(O&M)
Decided on : May 21, 2009
Union of India and others
... Appellants
VERSUS
Bhoop Singh
... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL
Present: Mr.Gurpreet Singh, Central Government Standing Counsel – for the appellant.
- A.N.JINDAL, J.
There is delay of 378 days in filing the appeal by the appellant – Union of India. No plausible reasons have been put forward for condoning such a long delay. Mere explanation that the delay took place on account of completing many official formalities cannot be considered sufficient ground for condoning the delay. The State cannot be put at a different stature than that of common man, rather the official machinery being a coterie of legal experts and educated people should have been more vigilant and respectful to the statute of limitation.
Even otherwise on merits also, there are concurrent finding regarding the entitlement of the respondent for pension, but the Trial Court dismissed the suit as being time-barred. However, the First
Regular Second Appeal No.1525 of 2009(O&M) [ 2 ]
Appellate Court, while forming a view that the loss of pension is a recurring loss and the aggrieved person can approach the Court at any time, held the respondent entitled to disability pension, but confined it to three years and two months, prior to the filing of the suit i.e. 30.7.1990.
The concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below are based on proper appreciation of the evidence and, thus, no interference could be called for.
Resultantly, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal also fails.
May 21, 2009 `gian'
Union of India and others
Bhoop Singh
A.N.JINDAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
