HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPU APPELLANT DEFENDANT N0. 4 SECOND APPEAL NQ. 283/2011 South Eastern Coalfields Ud. Through Chief General Manager Chirmiri Area, Chirmiri, The. Manendragarh, Distt. Koriya (C.G.) RESPONDENTS Def. no. l Def no.2 Def.no. 3 VERSUS 1. 2. 3. Def. no.7 Plaintiffno. 1 Plaintiff no. 2 Def. no.5 Def. no.6 4. 5. 6. Taramani wd/o Late Fagua, Aged about 41 years Sudhir Kutnar S/o Late Fagua, Aged about 15 years Deepa Kumari D/o Late Fagua, Aged about 12 years Respondent No. 2 and 3 being minor through mother and guardian at litem Taramani Wd/o Late Fagua, R/o Koriya Colliery, The. Baikunthpur, Distt. Koriya (C.G.) Hridaynath S/o Late Pagua, aged about 23 years, R/o Vill. Koriya Colliery, The. Baikunthpur, Distt. Koriya (C.G.) Kusumlalita alleged W/o Late Fagua, aged about 41 years, R/o Koriya Colliery, The. Baikunthpur, Distt. Koriya (C.G.) Deepmala D/o Late Fagua, aged about 21 years,' R/o Koriya Collier^', The. Baikunthpur, Distt. Koriya (C.G.) Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Near Gayatri Mandir, Civil Lines, Shahdol (M.P.) Assistant Commissioner, Coal Mines, Provident Fund OfGce, Shakti Nagar, Gupteshwar, Jabalpur (M.P.) gECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE. (SB :Hon'bIe Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present : Shri A.S. Gaharwar, Advocate for the appellant. Respondents not noticed. -JUDGEMENT (Passed on 12/09/2011) 1. By this secorid appegT under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure C.ode, 1908 appellant has challenged the judgment and decree dated 5/12/2009 passed by DistrictJudge, Koriya C.G. in Civil Appeal No. l7-A/.2008^in succession proceeding whereby District Judge, Koriya C.G. has passed the following order:- ^ -2-- o 1 . "'a^cTSR :3:ETO Lb<ycll Ru1c;td cTcfSsfTCT cblFA^I cfff cyoy ?& tTS'cTTcT ^fl'OUtlTO^t'OTTCRO TTCT XJcTO'zftoUTTO cTSTT 'S'STcf cift' ^cpar ci3^i3T ctf?T?TT T?Er cTlytHlc^l ITP^T cfi^sft 1 ~^S ^cbcH ^ A' 1 000 O O/- (TTCR r) apftcrreff di^irfioTl ?Rt ^<-id51 STcr^rstR ^'cflc:i ^rfte qjTTR CcT ^ITTT <g<Hl5' c& a-T?°T-TTTlSTaT ^g felT uf|A)dll | 2. -?ETO l-bd|,cll ^pt '^'c^i, Ef^ 5TTS' S-TopfiTTT fSr^feFcT A TTRTcTT RT3TT3T ^S fsfSTS^ ^fS STSTSTT? rll^|cH°ll ("ScTO LbdJ.cll Slft Fiicil^ ^osTl) cpt ^tsft ] sitaTcft ct^^cH c1^cv]t-fl •3T^E|53:ITT lciytcin ^g 3TO^TT 3TfE)ZRT? ?TTiT3=Tcft ^fs •q'^'T ^ rSTTSTcft ^ 1 3. 3T££RaTcTT ^rTdddoT 'cSf ^Sf 3-T(^'?T 35T a-TTIT ^TT'ST i T-rs-rasT; 3rcraT-3TT5n' crre- 3 Sft? 3TTCRft ^6^l1r1 c& SnETT? TT? 'HcRTUT •cfft C^IA[c]|^ ^iHll<1 SfSt ullcfl ?. 1 '?:?T 3T(^?T ^?!' ERTtfT lTS-T£RT;t ^f f5T:%I^ER ^t uTT^ I" 2. On the basis of compromise between private parties in which present appellant was not member of such compromise. 3. Present second appeal has been preferred after 558 days of its limitation, I.A. No. 01, application for condonation of delay in filinj second appeal perused. 4. Shri A.S. Gaharwar, Advocate for the appellant is heard. 5. As per learned counsel for the appellant, initially there was no need to file second appeal against the order impugned but on the ground of misinter-pretation/issuance of notice by the trial Court, present appellant has filed this second appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the. appellant further submits that trial Court is insisting for issuance of compassionate appointment to respondent No. 1 Taramani who is not legally'wed'ded. wife of deceased Fagua . and as per Departmental Rule of appellant, only legally wedded wife or legal representatives of deceased may be appointed in -J compassionate appointment that too not as a vested right of the parties. 7. Order impugned and Condition No. 2 are unambiguous and Appellate Court has specifically;passed the order that second wife of deceased Fagua may entitledffor compassionate appointment in accordance with Departmental Rules means if Departmental Rules will not permit such appointment then she would not be entitled for appointment. Ground taken in under Section 5 of the Limitation Act reveals that instead of §]iowing sufficient cause prior to expiry of limitation prescribed appellant has tried to defend the delay in filing the second appeal even otherwise, I do not find any substantial question of law for deeision of second appeal in the light of aforesaid facts. Consequently, I.A. No. 01, application for condonation of delay in filing second appeal is liable to be dismisged and is hereby dismissed ard I.A. No. 02, application for exemption for filing typed copy is also dismissed and in consequent second appeal is dismissed. No ordei '-i.s to costs. Certified copy as per ru''°s. JUDGE </^