Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 79 (JHR)

Union of India v. Lalan Prasad

2018-01-10

ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, D.N.PATEL

body2018
ORDER : D.N. Patel, J. I.A. No. 3884 of 2010 : This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 168 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 9, there are reasonable reasons for condonation of delay. We, therefore condone the delay of 168 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal. 3. This interlocutory application is, therefore, allowed and disposed of. L.P.A No. 447 of 2010 : 1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by original respondent No. 1 of W.P. (s) No. 5374 of 2007 which was decided on 11th March, 2010, whereby, the learned Single Judge had allowed the claim for grant of part of family pension to the original petitioner, who is respondent No.1 in this Letters Patent Appeal and who is the father of the deceased employee of the Union of India. Reasons : 2. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, especially Annexure-1 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal which was also annexed as Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit filed by the Union of India in the writ petition, it appears that if the parents are wholly dependent on the Armed Forces Personnel, when he/she alive, he will be entitled to the part of the family pension, but, this Rule has its own exception to the effect that if the deceased Armed Forces Personnel is leaving behind his widow or child, the parents will not get the portion of the family pension. 3. In the facts of the present case, the deceased employee, namely, Awadhesh Kumar expired during the course of his service in the Armed Forces and he has left behind his widow and a son and, hence, the original, petitioner is not entitled to the part of the family pension as per Annexure-1 dated 26th August, 1998. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while deciding W.P. (S) No. 5374 of 2007 vide order dated 11th March, 2010. We, therefore, quash and set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (s) No. 5374 of 2007, dated 11th March, 2010. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while deciding W.P. (S) No. 5374 of 2007 vide order dated 11th March, 2010. We, therefore, quash and set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (s) No. 5374 of 2007, dated 11th March, 2010. This Letters Patent Appeal is, therefore, allowed and disposed of. 4. In view of final order passed in the Letters Patent Appeal. I.A. No. 3885 of 2010 and I.A. No. 671 of 2011 are also disposed of. Appeal allowed.