Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1758 (JHR)

Anjana Kumari v. State of Jharkhand

2017-10-10

AMITAV K.GUPTA, D.N.PATEL

body2017
ORDER : D.N. Patel, J. I.A. No. 4791 of 2016 : This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 42 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal. 2. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and looking to the reasons stated in this interlocutory application especially in paragraph No.5, there are reasonable reasons for condonation of delay. We, therefore, condone the delay of 42 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal. 3. I.A. No. 4791 of 2016 is, therefore, allowed and disposed of. LPA No. 332 of 2016 : 1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 4277 of 2014 dated 10th May, 2016, whereby, the petition preferred by this appellant has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the husband of this appellant (original petitioner) expired on 7th May, 2010 in an accident. The husband of this appellant was working as a teacher and after taking two classes, he took permission from the Principal of the school and was going for the construction work of the school. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon Annexure-9, which is a letter dated 15th May, 2013. It is further submitted that the husband of this appellant expired when he was in the job and as per the Government Circular dated 29th June, 2011 which is at Annexure-5, this appellant is entitled to compensation of Rs. 10 Lakhs. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge. Learned counsel for the appellant has also relied upon Annexure-6 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal to the effect that after taking permission from the Principal of the school, the husband of this appellant had left the school. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent-State submitted that the Circular which is at Annexure-5 dated 29th June, 2011 is not applicable to the facts of the present case because the husband of this appellant had left the school on 7th May, 2010 after taking two classes for his personal work and he met with an accident. Letter of permission which has been annexed in this Letters Patent Appeal is fraudulent. This fact has also been conveyed by the respondents to this appellant vide letter at Annexure-10 dated 21st October, 2013. Letter of permission which has been annexed in this Letters Patent Appeal is fraudulent. This fact has also been conveyed by the respondents to this appellant vide letter at Annexure-10 dated 21st October, 2013. Moreover, the husband of this appellant was not concerned with the construction work of the school because he was a teacher. For construction work of the school, he had not to go out of the school, at all. Moreover, there is no material on record that the husband of this appellant was permitted to go out of the school. These aspects of the matter have been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition and, hence, this Letters Patent Appeal may not be entertained by this Court. Reasons : 4. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reason to entertain this Letters Patent Appeal mainly for the following facts and reasons : (i) The husband of this appellant was working as a teacher in Project Girls High School, Pratappur, Chatra and on 7th May, 2010 after taking two classes, he left the school and, thereafter, he met with an accident. (ii) It appears that this appellant has alleged that her husband had left the school for construction work of the school with the permission of the Principal. For establishing these facts, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon Annexure-6 as well as Annexure-9, but, looking to the communication of the respondents which is at Annexure-10 dated 21st October, 2013, these letters have been found to be forged one. (iii) Thus, fraud is alleged by the respondents. The fact alleged by this appellant that her husband had left the school with the permission of the Principal of the school, is not established. (iv) It further appears that the husband of this appellant was a school teacher and not the contractor. The husband of this appellant was not concerned with the construction work and, hence, during the school hours there was no reason for him to leave the school. (v) It also appears that the husband of this appellant met with an accident on 7th May, 2010 and he expired when he was going for his personal work during the working hours of the school. (v) It also appears that the husband of this appellant met with an accident on 7th May, 2010 and he expired when he was going for his personal work during the working hours of the school. (vi) Looking to Annexure-5 dated 29th June, 2011 and the conditions attached with the said Circular, this appellant is not entitled to the compensation of Rs. 10 Lakhs. These aspects of the matter have been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition preferred by this appellant. The death of husband of this appellant has taken place, 13 months prior to the date of issuance of this Circular. 5. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and reasons, no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge while dismissing W.P. (S) No. 4277 of 2014 dated 10th May, 2016. We see no reason to take any other view than what is taken by the learned Single Judge. There is no substance in this Letters Patent Appeal, the same is, therefore, dismissed.