Dismissed

Chairman-Cum-Managing Dir, Hvpnl & Ors. v. Asha

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Jan 2009RSA/316/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This second appeal against a decree for compassionate appointment on death on duty was dismissed on merits and limitation grounds. The delay in filing was not condoned, in part due to an administrative lapse in processing the appeal request. The claim was upheld by lower courts as the requisite 10-year service was not mandatory for death on duty.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed on merits as well as on the ground of limitation; the application for condonation of delay was rejected.

Chairman-Cum-Managing Dir, Hvpnl… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

R.S.A. No. 316 of 2009 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

R.S.A. No. 316 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 19.1.2009

¶5

Chairman-cum-Managing Director, HVPNL and others

....Appellants

Versus

Smt. Asha

....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA

¶11

Present: Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate, for the appellants.

¶12

*****

¶13

VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL)

¶14

This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 4.6.2008 and 29.7.2008 passed by the learned Courts below vide which the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for declaration claiming right of appointment on compassionate grounds stands decreed.

¶15

It is not in dispute that the husband of the plaintiff died while in duty due to accident. The fact that the deceased has died in discharge of duty, cannot be disputed as the compensation under the Workman Compensation Act stood paid to him.

¶16

It is also not in dispute that the application, moved for compassionate appointment was as per the circular of the appellant, however, the appointment was not made nor appellants conveyed, the decision rejecting the claim of the plaintiff. It was only when the suit

¶17

R.S.A. No. 316 of 2009 (O&M)

¶18

-2-

¶19

was filed, that stand was taken by the appellant/defendants that the plaintiff or her son was not entitled to appointment on compassionate ground as the deceased had not completed 10 years of service.

¶20

However, this plea of the appellants stands rejected by the learned Courts below in view of the circular Ex. PW-1/X, which provides that in case of death on duty, there was no necessity to complete 10 years of service or that the service was not permanent. The defence of the appellants was mis-conceived.

¶21

The learned counsel for the appellants contends that, the learned Courts below were not justified in decreeing the suit as after a period of 10 years of death of Ashok Kumar as the very purpose of compassionate appointment stood defeated.

¶22

It is a well settled law that pendency in Court for a sufficient long period, cannot be a ground for the appellants to challenge the judgment and decree. It is not the stand of the appellants that the claim of the plaintiff stood rejected being belated. If the appellants slept over the matter, it could not be a ground to deny the relief which is due to a party as per law.

¶23

The, appeal raises no substantial question of law for consideration by this Court, thus deserves to be dimissed.

¶24

The appeal is accompanied by an application under Section 151 CPC for condonation of delay of 67 days in filing the appeal.

¶25

On the oral prayer of the learned counsel for the applicant/appellants the application is treated to be one under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

¶26

The reason given in the application is that it was due to the

¶27

R.S.A. No. 316 of 2009 (O&M)

¶28

-3-

¶29

administrative reasons that appeal could not be filed in time and, thus, there occurred delay of 67 days in filing the appeal.

¶30

Reasons given for condonation of delay read as under: -

¶31

"That on the pronouncement of the judgment and decree dated 29.7.2008, the appellants applied for the certified copy of the abovesaid judgment and decree through their counsel at lower court on 6.8.2008 and the same was obtained on 26.8.2008. After receiving the judgment and decree, the case was processed and sent to the higher authorities taking a decision regarding filing of the appeal before this Hon'ble Court. The competent authority decided to file present appeal and the Legal Remembrancer, Power Utilities, Haryana requested to the present counsel vide letter dated 22.12.2008 to file the appeal against the impugned judgment and decree dated 29.7.2008. However, when the appellants contacted the present counsel in the last week of December of 2008 to file the appeal, then it was infomed that the appeal has been barred by limitation and asked the authorities to make available all the relevant record of the case. On this, the relevant record was made available to the present counsel by the office. In this way, a delay of 67 days has been caused in filing the appeal."

¶32

It would be seen that absolutely no explanation is forthcoming for the delay from 26.8.2008 to 22.12.2008 after the counsel was

¶33

R.S.A. No. 316 of 2009 (O&M)

¶34

-4-

¶35

contacted for filing the appeal. Thus, no sufficient ground has been made out for condonation of delay.

¶36

Consequently, the appeal is dismissed on merits as well as on

¶37

ground of limitation.

¶38

(Vinod K. Sharma) Judge

¶39

January 19, 2009 R.S.

Chairman-Cum-Managing Dir, Hvpnl & Ors. v. Asha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chairman-Cum-Managing Dir, Hvpnl & Ors. v. Asha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kewal Krishan Vs Tirath Ram and Ors.

Amrit Kumar Vs Kulwant Singh

Bukan Singh Vs Pakhar Singh

Mohinder Singh and Others Vs Nachattar Singh and Others

Baru Singh Vs the Sub. Div. Magistrate Amloh and Ors.

Balwant Singh & Anr. Vs Bank of India & Ors.