Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 21 (JK)

Union Of India v. Biro Devi

2007-03-06

B.A.KHAN, J.P.SINGH

body2007
Per J.P. Singh, J. 1. Biro Devi respondent, the widow of late Ex-sepoy Bhag Singh filed a writ petition in this Court in the year 2001 seeking quashing of Officer- In-Charge Raksha Surakasha Corps Abilekhi Defence Security Corps Records Mill Road Cannanores Order No. PEN/FP-13719809/166 dated 1st of May, 1996 rejecting her husbands claim for disability pension and seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the disability pension/family pension, gratuity and other funds to her as admissible under rules. 2. The writ court, after considering the case of the respondent and defence projected by the appellants, allowed the petition holding the disability suffered by the husband of the respondent to be on account of stress and strain of army service and the respondent entitled to family pension restricting her claim only to a period of three years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition. A direction was issued by the writ court to release family pension in favour of the respondent in terms of the rules. 3. The appellants, did not prefer appeal against the judgment of the writ court within the statutory period of limitation prescribed for filing such appeals i.e. 60 days from the date of the judgment. They on the other hand, appear to have involved themselves in correspondence emanating from their counsel, OIC Legal Cell and other functionaries of Union of India, little caring about the limitation prescribed under the Jammu and Kashmir High Court Rules for filing appeals against the judgment. It was after a lapse of about 122 days that the appellants filed appeal in this court along with CDLSW No.177/06 seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The appellants say that being a Government of India case, its officials were involved in going through the procedural formalities and in this process, the filing of the appeal was delayed. 4. We have considered the submission of Mr. Chandel, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in support of the application and Mr. Navneet Dubey, learned counsel for the respondents, in presence of Biro Devi, the destitute widow who was also present in the court. 4. We have considered the submission of Mr. Chandel, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in support of the application and Mr. Navneet Dubey, learned counsel for the respondents, in presence of Biro Devi, the destitute widow who was also present in the court. We do not notice in the case of the appellants, their awareness about the period of limitation prescribed for filing appeals under the Jammu and Kashmir High Court Rules still less any attempt on their behalf to facilitate the filing the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. The appellants appear to be labouring under a misconception that delay in filing the appeal would be condoned as a matter of course without their having projected any worthwhile case demonstrating genuine sufficient cause which had disabled them to file appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. 5. We have noticed in number of cases that it has become a practice with the Union of India and State authorities to sleepover in the matter of filing appeals within the prescribed period of limitation giving an expression as if the law of limitation had taken a back seat. 6. There is nothing on records wherefrom it may be discerned that the appellants and their functionaries had done all that was required of them to do to facilitate the filing of appeal within the prescribed period of limitation and that the appeal could not be filed because of some unavoidable circumstances. 7. We are of the view that condonation of delay in filing appeals in contested matters may be allowed only in those cases where a litigant, despite having done all what was required to be done by it for filing appeal within the prescribed period of limitation had been disabled to do it because of some or the other unavoidable circumstances or reasons And not as a matter of course. Functionaries of Union of India and State are required to be more vigilant in following the law of limitation in its letter and spirit rather than acting recalcitrant to it rendering it meaningless. 8. Condonation of delay and permitting filing of appeals beyond the period of limitation, in turn, deprives the opposite party of his earned right which he gets because of the non-filing of appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. 9. 8. Condonation of delay and permitting filing of appeals beyond the period of limitation, in turn, deprives the opposite party of his earned right which he gets because of the non-filing of appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. 9. Good and strong reasons are thus required to be spelt-out by those who seek condonation of delay in filing proceedings beyond the prescribed period of limitation therefor. Liberal construction of the provisions of law providing for condonation of delay may be possible only within the spirit or reason of the law or within the evil, which it was designed to remedy, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of each case. 10. Respondent, widow, present in the Court, has been craving for justice and that too for a paltry amount of pension, for about six years in this Court. 11. We do not want to protract her agony any more particularly in view of the casual approach of the appellants to allow the period of limitation to expire without their having taken any steps to expedite the filing of appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. 12. Finding no good and sufficient grounds to condone the delay in filing the appeal, we would dismiss CDLSW No. D-177/06 along with LPASW No.D-231/2006.