IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1166 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 02.09.2011 UHBVNL and others … Appellants Versus Sudesh Kumar and others …Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.C.PURI Present: Mr.Rahul Garg, Advocate for Mr.Siddarath Batra, Advocate for the appellant. K.C.Puri, J. Challenge in this appeal is the judgment and decree dated 29.4.2010 passed by Shri R.K. Bishnoi, District Judge, Ambala vide which the appeal preferred by defendants-appellants against judgment and decree dated 21.10.2009 passed by Shri Rahul Bishnoi, Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.), Ambala City, was dismissed. Briefly stated legal heirs of the Maya Ram have filed a suit for declaration, challenging the order dated 9.11.2004 passed by defendant No.1 vide which the claim of plaintiff No.1 for compassionate appointment in lieu of death of Maya Ram, was declined. Maya Ram was working as Assistant Lineman under the defendants. A decree of mandatory injunction to provide compassionate appointment to plaintiff No.1, has been sought. It is further pleaded that Maya Ram died on 10.2.2001 having more than 23 years of regular service to his credit before his death. The plaintiffs and their mother were fully dependent upon Maya Ram. All the plaintiffs were unemployed at the time of death of Maya Ram on 10.2.2011. A list of the dependents of such deceased employee is being maintained by the defendants to provide RSA No.1166 of 2011 (O&M) compassionate appointment. After the death of Maya Ram, an application on behalf of the plaintiffs for seeking compassionate appointment was submitted to defendant No.3 i.e. SDO Operation Sub Division, Barara, who forwarded the same to defendant No.2 i.e. Operation Division No.2, Ambala Cantt. The compassionate appointment was ultimately declined on 9.11.2004 on the ground that earlier rules were not applicable. It is pleaded that rules prevalent on 31.8.1995 would be applicable and Rules of 2003 would not be applicable. The defendants have contested the suit by filing written statement and taking preliminary objections that the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable and the plaintiffs have concealed true and material facts from this Court. On merits, it is admitted that Maya Ram was working as Assistant Lineman under the Sub Division, UHBVN Barara at the time of his death on 10.2.2001. It is pleaded that family members have received all the benefits including Leave Encashment, GPF, GIS, Ex-gratia payment and family pension. There is no delay on the part of the defendants. The Rules of 2003 would be applicable. Plaintiff No.1 was more than 25 years at the time of death of his father. The family of the deceased is entitled for Cash Financial Assistance in view of Rules 2003. Plaintiffs filed replication controverting the stand taken in the written statement and reiterating the contents of the plaint. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the Memo No.CH-4/UH/CA/Pen/E414 dated 09.11.2004 passed by the defendant No.1 is illegal, null and void as alleged?OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff no.1 is entitled to be appointed on suitable Post on Compassionate grounds with the defendants as alleged? OPP. 2 RSA No.1166 of 2011 (O&M) 3. If issues no.1 and 2 are proved in favour of the plaintiff, whether the plaintiff is entitled to give financial assistance as alleged? OPP. 4. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 5. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 6. Whether the plaintiffs have concealed the true and material facts from the court ? OPD. 7. Whether the plaintiff is stopped from filing the present suit? 8. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD. 9. Relief. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff examined Shri Sudesh Kumar as PW1 and relied upon certain documents. In rebuttal, defendants examined DW1 Shri Vijay Kumar and closed the evidence after tendering certain documents. Learned trial Court, after appraisal of the evidence, directed the defendants to consider the claim of the plaintiff for compassionate appointment in light of instructions/rules/policies of the State Government prevalent at the time of death of Maya Ram i.e. on 10.2.2001. Feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment, the defendants preferred the first appeal which was dismissed vide judgment dated 29.4.2010 passed by Shri R.K. Bishnoi, District Judge, Ambala. Still dissatisfied with the judgment dated 29.4.2010 passed by Shri R.K. Bishnoi, District Judge, Ambala, and judgment dated 21.10.2009 passed by Shri Rahul Bishnoi, Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.), Ambala City, the defendants preferred the present Regular Second Appeal. Along with appeal, there is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 240 days in filing the appeal. The only ground taken in the application is that the appellant has sought 3 RSA No.1166 of 2011 (O&M) permission from the Head-office for filing the appeal and the same was granted only on 2.6.2010. Thereafter, the office clerk contacted the counsel for the appellant in the High Court and relevant documents were submitted on 24.2.2011. Even according to the appellant, the permission by the Head- office to file the appeal, was granted on 2.6.2010. The appeal has been preferred only on 25.2.2011. No explanation has been given by the appellant for this huge delay of more than 8-1/2 months in filing the appeal after obtaining sanction. No doubt, the court should be liberal in condoning the delay in filing the appeal but where there is no explanation for delay, in that case, the institution cannot be allowed to the benefit of the wrong done by that institution. Otherwise also, the Courts below have directed the defendants-appellant to consider the claim of the appellant in view of the policy prevalent at the time of death of Maya Ram. So, on merit also, no case for interference is made out in view of the concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the courts below. The appeal stands dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merit. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for compliance. ( K.C. Puri) Judge 02.09.2011 sd 4