Dismissed

State of Haryana v. Umed Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Jan 2009RSA/46/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge High Court of Punjab and Haryana first allowed an application for condonation of a 20-day appeal delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It then dismissed a regular second appeal. The appeal did not raise any substantial question of law as the appellants were not able to controvert the lower courts' finding that departmental proceedings initiated against a retired person with

What did the court decide?

Condonation of 20 days delay allowed; second appeal dismissed.

State of Haryana Vs Umed Singh — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

R.S.A. No. 46 of 2009 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

R.S.A. No. 46 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 09.1.2009

¶5

State of Haryana and others

....Appellants

Versus

Sh. Umed Singh

....Respondent

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

¶11

Present: Mr. Madan Gupta, Sr. D.A.G., Haryana.

¶12

¶13

VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL)

¶14

C.M. No. 155-C of 2006

¶15

This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for seeking condonation of delay of 20 days in filing the appeal.

¶16

It is the averment in the application that the decision to file the appeal was taken and the file was sent for preparation of appeal. It was due to the administrative procedure involved that the delay of 20 days has occurred in filing the present appeal.

¶17

For the reasons stated in the application, sufficient cause is shown for condoning the delay of 20 days.

¶18

Consequently, this application is allowed and delay of 20 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

¶19

R.S.A. No. 46 of 2009

¶20

This regular second appeal is directed against the judgments and decrees dated 23.4.2007 and 9.9.2008 passed by the learned Courts below partly decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent.

¶21

The plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for declaration seeking decree

¶22

R.S.A. No. 46 of 2009 (O&M)

¶23

-2-

¶24

that he may be granted commuted value of the pension, gratuity, G.P.F. final payment, G.I.S., leave encashment and also sought employment for a family member on compassionate ground under the ex-gratia scheme. He also sought refund of amount recovered from his retiral benefits.

¶25

The learned Courts held that the part of the relief has been granted to the plaintiff/respondent by department and qua some of the relief decreed the suit. However, the plea of compassionate appointment stands declined.

¶26

The State contested the suit primarily on the ground that there was an order of recovery after following the process of law and after adjusting the amount, certain amount was still due from the plaintiff/respondent.

¶27

However, the learned Courts below held that the departmental proceedings against the plaintiff/respondent were initiated after his retirement. However, before initiating departmental proceedings, no sanction of the Government was obtained, which was pre-requisite to initiate any departmental proceedings.

¶28

The learned Courts also held that the plaintiff/respondent had not been given opportunity to defend himself as the notice sent to him was returned with the remarks that he was mentally insane and, therefore, was not capable of contesting the suit.

¶29

The learned Courts, thus, held that the inquiry conducted against the plaintiff was contrary to the statutory provisions and, therefore, nonest in the eye of law, as in absence of sanction of the State Government, no inquiry could be initiated against retired person.

¶30

The learned Sr. D.A.G., Haryana, appearing on behalf of the State has not been able to controvert the finding as it is the admitted that no sanction of the State Government was obtained before initiating the departmental proceedings.

¶31

R.S.A. No. 46 of 2009 (O&M)

¶32

-3-

¶33

In view of violations of statutory provisions, proceedings were totally illegal and void and, therefore, the learned Courts below were right in granting the relief.

¶34

The appellants have been permitted to initiate proceedings against the respondent in accordance with law, if so advised and permissible.

¶35

This appeal, thus, raises no substantial question of law for consideration by this Court.

¶36

Dismissed.

¶37

(Vinod K. Sharma) Judge

¶38

January 9, 2009 R.S.

State of Haryana v. Umed Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Haryana v. Umed Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chhater Singh and Ors. Vs Zile Singh and Ors.

Municipal Committee Hissar Vs Shiv Dayal

Teja Singh Vs Amar Singh

Chief Town Planner Officer Vs Surinder Singh and Ors.

Chhaju Ram and Ors. Vs Basant Nath

Kashmir Singh Vs Punjabi University and Anr.