STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. HIRA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been filed by the appellants herein, namely, State of H.P., Conservator of Forests, Nahan, Divisional Forest Officer, Renuka J1 Forest Division and Range Officer, Kofta Range under the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act (hereinafter called as 'the Act'), seeking condonation of delay in instituting the appeal against the award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Sub-Division Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P., awarding Rs. 1,40,890 along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum, which comes to Rs. 1,39,932, to the claimants for the death of Ghasi Ram who was discharging his duties with the respondents. While awarding interest, the Commissioner held that there is a delay of more than 8 years, 3 months and 11 days in paying the compensation and, therefore, the claimants were entitled to interest on the principal amount.

(2.) THE appeal is barred by 261 days. In the application, it is pleaded that the award was passed on 10.3.2008 and thereafter, the necessary formalities followed, namely, it was received in the office of Divisional Forest Office on 20.3.2008. THE case was submitted to District Attorney on 24.3.2008. THE case was then referred to the Conservator of Forests at Nahan on 17.4.2008. Again the Conservator of Forests, Nahan passed a fresh opinion on 12.5.2008. THE case was then submitted to Chief Conservator of Forests on 24.6.2008, where it was examined and some additional information was asked from Divisional Forest Officer on 10.7.2008 and the case was sent to the Additional Chief Secretary Forest, H.P. on 11.9.2008. It is then pleaded:

(3.) LEARNED Deputy Advocate General submits that the reasons as set out in the application constitute sufficient ground for condonation of delay and that the petitioner had pursued the case diligently. LEARNED counsel for the respondent submits that the application does not disclose any sufficient cause but only shows that the file has been tossed from table to table. It cannot be considered to be 'sufficient' in terms as required under section 5 of the Act.