R.S.A. No. 316 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 316 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 19.1.2009 Chairman-cum-Managing Director, HVPNL and others ....Appellants Versus Smt. Asha ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate, for the appellants. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 4.6.2008 and 29.7.2008 passed by the learned Courts below vide which the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for declaration claiming right of appointment on compassionate grounds stands decreed. It is not in dispute that the husband of the plaintiff died while in duty due to accident. The fact that the deceased has died in discharge of duty, cannot be disputed as the compensation under the Workman Compensation Act stood paid to him. It is also not in dispute that the application, moved for compassionate appointment was as per the circular of the appellant, however, the appointment was not made nor appellants conveyed, the decision rejecting the claim of the plaintiff. It was only when the suit R.S.A. No. 316 of 2009 (O&M) -2- was filed, that stand was taken by the appellant/defendants that the plaintiff or her son was not entitled to appointment on compassionate ground as the deceased had not completed 10 years of service. However, this plea of the appellants stands rejected by the learned Courts below in view of the circular Ex. PW-1/X, which provides that in case of death on duty, there was no necessity to complete 10 years of service or that the service was not permanent. The defence of the appellants was mis-conceived. The learned counsel for the appellants contends that, the learned Courts below were not justified in decreeing the suit as after a period of 10 years of death of Ashok Kumar as the very purpose of compassionate appointment stood defeated. It is a well settled law that pendency in Court for a sufficient long period, cannot be a ground for the appellants to challenge the judgment and decree. It is not the stand of the appellants that the claim of the plaintiff stood rejected being belated. If the appellants slept over the matter, it could not be a ground to deny the relief which is due to a party as per law. The, appeal raises no substantial question of law for consideration by this Court, thus deserves to be dimissed. The appeal is accompanied by an application under Section 151 CPC for condonation of delay of 67 days in filing the appeal. On the oral prayer of the learned counsel for the applicant/appellants the application is treated to be one under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The reason given in the application is that it was due to the R.S.A. No. 316 of 2009 (O&M) -3- administrative reasons that appeal could not be filed in time and, thus, there occurred delay of 67 days in filing the appeal. Reasons given for condonation of delay read as under: - "That on the pronouncement of the judgment and decree dated 29.7.2008, the appellants applied for the certified copy of the abovesaid judgment and decree through their counsel at lower court on 6.8.2008 and the same was obtained on 26.8.2008. After receiving the judgment and decree, the case was processed and sent to the higher authorities taking a decision regarding filing of the appeal before this Hon'ble Court. The competent authority decided to file present appeal and the Legal Remembrancer, Power Utilities, Haryana requested to the present counsel vide letter dated 22.12.2008 to file the appeal against the impugned judgment and decree dated 29.7.2008. However, when the appellants contacted the present counsel in the last week of December of 2008 to file the appeal, then it was infomed that the appeal has been barred by limitation and asked the authorities to make available all the relevant record of the case. On this, the relevant record was made available to the present counsel by the office. In this way, a delay of 67 days has been caused in filing the appeal." It would be seen that absolutely no explanation is forthcoming for the delay from 26.8.2008 to 22.12.2008 after the counsel was R.S.A. No. 316 of 2009 (O&M) -4- contacted for filing the appeal. Thus, no sufficient ground has been made out for condonation of delay. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed on merits as well as on ground of limitation. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge January 19, 2009 R.S.