Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 440 (JHR)

Bharat Coking Coal Limited v. Sabitri Devi (Wife)

2020-03-04

RAVI RANJAN, SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

body2020
ORDER : Ravi Ranjan, J. I.A. No.513 of 2020: 1. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 does not press I.A. No.513 of 2020 as substitution has already been allowed while considering I.A. No.3467 of 2019 on 15.10.2019 itself. 2. However, let the vakalatnama filed on behalf of the concerned respondent along with interlocutory application be kept in record. I.A. No.513 of 2020 stands disposed of. I.A. No.4262 of 2018: 3. This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 100 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal. 4. Heard parties. 5. None has appeared on behalf of respondent Nos.2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, however, as has been stated above, vakalatnama has been filed on behalf of respondent No.1. 6. In view of the submissions made on behalf of the parties and the averments made in the interlocutory application, we are of the view that the appellants were prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the period of limitation. 7. Accordingly, I.A. No. 4262 of 2018 is allowed and delay of 100 days in preferring the appeal is condoned. L.P.A. No.184 of 2018: 8. The appellants are aggrieved by the following directions given under paragraph 9 of the impugned decision of the learned Single Judge: (i) The respondents are directed to constitute the Age Determination Committee/Medical Board in terms of Implementation Instruction No. 76 within three months from the date of this order and the Age Determination Committee/Medical Board will determine the age of the petitioner and will intimate the date of the birth of the petitioner so determined in terms of Implementation Instruction No. 76 to the respondents within one month of its constitution. (ii) The respondents are directed to act upon the date of birth arrived at by the Age Determination Committee/Medical Board within two months of receiving the report regarding date of birth of the petitioner. (iii) In case, the date of birth of the petitioner is determined as 10.10.1953, then respondents are directed to pay all post retirement dues payable to the petitioner as per law within three months from the date of report. (iii) In case, the date of birth of the petitioner is determined as 10.10.1953, then respondents are directed to pay all post retirement dues payable to the petitioner as per law within three months from the date of report. (iv) In case, the date of birth of the petitioner is determined as any date other than 10.10.1953, then respondents are directed to accept the same and intimate the same to the petitioner and to give all such benefits to the petitioner to which he would have been entitled had his date of birth been the date of birth which is determined by Age Determination Committee/Medical Board. 9. The main thrust of the appeal is on the issue as to whether in view of the facts and circumstances of the case a direction could have been given to constitution of Age Determination Committee/Medical Board in terms of Implementation Instruction No.76 or not. 10. However, the fact is that the learned counsel for the appellants had already stated before the learned Single Judge that the respondents should have no objection if such Age Determination Committee/Medical Board is constituted in terms of Implementation Instruction No.76 which would be apparent from plain reading of paragraphs 7 & 8 of the impugned judgment, which stand quoted as under : “7. In view of the above, learned counsel for the petitioner modifies his prayer by submitting that respondent no. 4 be directed to constitute the Age Determination Committee/Medical Board in terms of Implementation Instruction No. 76 and in accordance with the procedure for determination or verification of age of the petitioner so that his age be determined. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection to it.” 11. We are of the view that the appellants cannot raise this issue in the present appeal. 12. In above view of the matter, we are not inclined to entertain this appeal in view of such concession which has already been given by the appellants/respondents before the learned Single Judge. 13. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. 14. As a consequence of the aforesaid, I.A. No. 4328 of 2018 also stands disposed of.