JUDGMENT 1. - The appeal is barred by 132 days. The matter is placed on the application filed by the appellants for condonation of this delay. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties on the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and going through the contents of the application we are satisfied that the appellants have satisfactorily explained this delay. Accordingly this application succeeds and the same is allowed and the delay of 132 days. 4. Admit. Since Shri S.P. Sharma put appearance on behalf of the respondent, notice needs not to issue to him. The matter is complete. 5. In view of the order dated 20.3.2002, the appeal itself is being taken up for final hearing. 6. Ms. Nimisha Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants, contended that the Commissioner under Workman Compensation Act, 1923, Kota has committed a serious error of jurisdiction in passing the award and directing the appellants thereunder to pay to the respondent a sum of Rs. 98,830/- as compensation. 7. The facts of the case, in brief, are that late Shakru was working in the Office of Assistant Engineer, CAD, right main Canal, Sub-Division Anta, District Baran as a work charged employee with effect from 1.6.1971 on the post of Beldar. On 30/31.12.1987 at mid night late Shakru was on duty and thereafter he was not seen. The body of late Shakru was recovered on 4.1.1988 by the police as an FIR was lodged by the Junior Engineer at the instance of respondent, the wife of late Shakru. The respondent filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1549/1989 in this Court and following prayers were made, "(12) It is, therefore, humbly prayed that the entire record relating to this case may kingly be called for and examined and after examination of the same; (i) writ of mandamus be kindly issued against the respondents directing them to give regular employment to the petitioner forthwith. (ii) that petitioner's husband was in service of the respondents right from 1964 and he worked till his death while on duty in 1987, but no regular increment, promotions or any service benefits were given; which the petitioner is entitled to get along with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum; (iii) that petitioner's husband died while in service, he lost his life while performing his duty, as such writ of mandamus be kindly issued against the respondents to make payment by way of compensation to the extent of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the petitioner. (iv) that writ, direction or order may kindly be issued directing the respondents to make payment of above dues within a specified period as this Hon'ble Court may fix in this case. (v) that any other appropriate relief to which the petitioner may be found entitled be also granted. (vi) that writ petition be kindly allowed with costs." 8. The writ petition was contested. After hearing both the parties, this Court directed the appellants to give to the respondent the amount of CPF/GPF and other service benefits for which the respondent's husband was entitled. The respondent filed a claim petition before the Commissioner under the Workman Compensation Act, 1923, Kota, that has been contested by the appellants. Vide order dated 21.4.1995 the Commissioner under the Workman Compensation Act, 1923, Kota allowed the application of the respondent and directed the appellants to pay Rs. 98,830/-. Against that order the appellants preferred the above noted Civil Misc. Appeal which has been dismissed under the impugned order, hence this special appeal. 9. Ms. Nimisha Sharma, the learned counsel for the appellants, contended that the claim filed before the Commissioner under the Workman Compensation Act, 1923, Kota by the respondent was barred by the principle of res-judicata. On the other hand Shri S.P. Sharma, the learned counsel for the respondent, supported the order of the learned Single Judge. 10. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 11. The order of the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1549/89 was placed for our perusal. We find therefrom that the Court has not passed any order for payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- by way of compensation for the loss of the life of the husband of the respondent. 11. The order of the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1549/89 was placed for our perusal. We find therefrom that the Court has not passed any order for payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- by way of compensation for the loss of the life of the husband of the respondent. This has rightly been not ordered as for this the remedy was before the Commissioner under the Workman Compensation Act, 1923, Kota. 12. The appellants have proceeded and worked under the impression, assumption and presumption as if in the writ petition this claim lodged for compensation has been granted. In case it would have been granted, certainly they have cause as the respondent has no right to claim double compensation for the loss of the life of her husband. The Commissioner under the Workman Compensation Act, 1923, Kota has jurisdiction in the matter and rightly the award has been passed against the appellant in which the learned Single Judge has not made interference and rightly so. 13. This appeal is wholly misconceived, misplaced and ill- advised. It is really shocking that in such matters the Officers of the State have gone to the extent of filing appeals after appeals rather than to respect and comply with the award of the learned Commissioner under the Workman Compensation Act, 1923, Kota. 14. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, this appeal fails and the same is dismissed with costs which is quantified to Rs. 1,100/- (Rs. eleven hundred only) which is to be personally paid to the respondent by Account Payee Cheque/DD/Pay Order.Appeal dismissed. *******