STATE OF JHARKHAND Vs. BAHABITI MARANDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the writ petitioner/respondent on the prayer for condonation of delay of 182 days in preferring the instant memo of appeal made through I.A. No.7258/2018.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellants submits that by the impugned judgment learned Single Judge has directed the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka to offer appointment letter to the petitioner on a Class-IV post on compassionate grounds. It is submitted that the learned Writ Court failed to consider that the petitioner was a minor at the time of making her application and has now become married. It is further urged that since the cause of action relates back the date of death of the employee i.e. 7 th April 2001, the new Rules framed by the State in 2015 cannot apply retrospectively to consider the case of a married daughter as has been held by the learned Single Judge. Apart from that, widow of the deceased and mother of the petitioner had applied for compassionate appointment beyond the period of five years of death, as such the widow's claim was not entertainable on grounds of delay while petitioner's claim was rejected on 18th June 2009 for the reason that she was a minor at the time of her application made within the prescribed period of five years from the date of death. On the point of delay learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned order dated 9th January 2018 was communicated by the Registry of the Court to the respondent and received on 8th February 2018. Thereafter the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka through letter dated 27th February 2018 sought guidelines from the Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand with regard to the action to be taken. The Principal Secretary, Personnel vide letter no.2811 dated 26th April 2018 directed the Deputy Commissioiner, Dumka to prefer an appeal before the learned Division Bench of this Court. Thereafter, the statement of the facts were prepared and sent for filing memo of appeal vide letter dated 28th July 2018 to the concerned Law Officer of the State. The appeal was drafted and filed thereafter which has occasioned the delay of 182 days which has been properly explained. There are no deliberate laches on the part of the appellants State in preferring the instant memo of appeal and delay, if any, were caused due to reasons beyond control of the appellants. Appellants have good grounds to succeed. If the delay is not condoned, appellants State would suffer irreparably as the impugned order may have far reaching consequences on the case of other similarly placed claimants, though it otherwise suffers from errors of law.

(3.) Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has strongly opposed the prayer. He submits that delay condonation application does not enclose any correspondence over which the appellants have relied to justify the processing of the file between the departments for explaining the delay. Learned counsel has further relied upon the judgment of learned Division Bench of this Court rendered in M/s. Central Coalfields Ltd. Vs. Sarlu Mahato reported in 2017(2) JBCJ 199 (HC). It is submitted that the learned Court on that occasion refused to condone the delay of 38 days in preferring the memo of appeal on the part of M/s. Central Coalfields Ltd. since there were no documents to substantiate the movement of the files from one department to another in explaining the delay. Learned Division Bench has also referred to a judgment rendered by the Apex Court such as in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. vs. Amarnath Yadav reported in (2014) 2 SCC 422 while rejecting the appeal on grounds of delay. The appellants have not shown bonafide explanation for condonation of delay. Therefore, the prayer for condonation of delay may be rejected and the appeal be dismissed.