HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY C.R.P. No.6004 OF 2008 DATE:18-09-2009 BETWEEN Union of India, Rep. By its General manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad & Another. …Petitioners AND Yeluri Bangaramma …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY C.R.P. No.6004 OF 2008 ORDER: Petitioners-defendants who suffered a decree in O.S.No.315 of 2006 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry for payment of arrears of pension with interest at 12% per annum, filed A.S.Sr.No.5257 of 2008 before the District Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry. Since there was delay of 253 days in preferring the appeal, I.A.No.2054 of 2008 was filed to condone the delay. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition it was pleaded that in the Railway records, as per the declaration given by late Apparao, his wife i.e. the respondent died in the year 1981 and whereas the respondent made her first representation for the benefits on account of death of late Apparao in 2004 only and she kept quiet for six long years without approaching the concerned authorities in respect of the claim and therefore, for the lapses of respondent, the petitioners-appellants cannot be penalized with interest at 12% per annum. It was stated that the petitioners had a good and strong case, and that the delay was occurred in the process of obtaining decision from the department for filing the appeal, and that there are no willful latches on the part of the appellants. The Court below by order dated 17.10.2008 dismissed the said application. Hence, the present revision. In the written statement filed in the suit, the petitioners have not taken any plea that the plaintiff is not entitled to any interest for the lapses on her part, but no doubt, an issue was framed to the effect ‘whether the plaintiff is entitled for arrears of pension with interest?’ and the same was answered in favour of the plaintiff following the decision of the Apex Court reported in State of Kerala v. M. Padmanabhan Nair (ALT 1985 303). Further except stating that the file would go to the legal department which would take considerable time in taking decision for preferring the appeal, the delay has not been properly explained by the petitioners muchless no particular dates were assigned. The reasons so assigned hardly constitute any ground to condone the delay. In view of the same, the discretion exercised by the Court below in refusing to condone the delay does not suffer from any manifest illegality warranting interference by this Court. The revision fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. SEPTEMBER 18, 2009 Tsr.