RSA No.3563 of 2010(O & M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3563 of 2010(O & M) Date of Decision: 06.09.2010. Punjab State and others .....Appellants Versus Kanta Kumari and others ……Respondents Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr.Vivek Chauhan, AAG, Punjab for the appellants. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) CM No.10435-C of 2010 Allowed as prayed for. CM no.10436-C of 2010 This is application by appellants (State of Punjab and its Authorities) for condonation of delay of 502 days in filing the appeal. It is alleged in the application that first appeal preferred by the appellants was dismissed by learned District Judge, Roopnagar vide judgment and decree dated 16.01.2009. Application for obtaining certified copies of the said judgment and decree was made on 06.02.2009 and the copies were prepared and supplied on 14.02.2009. District Education Officer sent letters dated 25.02.2009, 10.03.2009, 19.03.2009 and 12.04.2009 to Director, Public Instructions, intimating that first appeal stood dismissed and that limitation for filing the second appeal was upto 12.04.2009. Thereafter letter dated 02.11.2009 was written to Director, Public Instructions clarifying the factual position. Ultimately Director, Public RSA No.3563 of 2010(O & M) -2- Instructions vide letter dated 20.07.2010 granted sanction for filing the appeal and thereafter the appeal was actually filed on 31.08.2010. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant-appellants and perused the case file. Sequence of events given in the application to claim condonation of long delay of 502 days in filing the appeal as noticed hereinabove reveals that no ground whatsoever has been made out for condonation of the said long delay. There is no mention in the application as to what happened in the office of Director, Public Instructions since 25.02.2009, when the first letter was allegedly sent by District Education Officer, till 20.07.2010, when sanction for filing the second appeal was granted. This entire long delay of almost 17 months, which is sought to be condoned, stands completely unexplained. It appears that the appellants are taking the Courts for a ride. There is no ground whatsoever for condonation of long delay of almost 17 months in filing the appeal. The averments made in the application, even if taken at face value, do not constitute any ground much less sufficient ground for condonation of long delay. In fact no explanation at all has been given in the application for the long delay in filing the appeal. Even after grant of sanction for filing of appeal, the instant appeal was actually filed after another six weeks for which also there is no explanation. The application is thus completely frivolous and devoid of substance and is accordingly dismissed. Large number of time-barred appeals are preferred on behalf of State of Punjab with applications for condonation of delay. The instant case is a classical case in which there is delay of almost RSA No.3563 of 2010(O & M) -3- 17 months which stands completely unexplained. Accordingly, a copy of this order be sent to Chief Secretary, State of Punjab for taking remedial steps. Main Appeal. Since delay in filing the appeal has not been condoned, the appeal is liable to dismissal as time barred. Even on merits, having heard counsel for the appellants, I find no ground for interference with concurrent finding of the Courts below. Suit was filed by respondent No.1-Kanta Kumari whose husband unfortunately died in harness on 03.08.1991. He was employed in a Government Aided School. Retiral benefits of the deceased employee were not released for almost 6 years after his death and, therefore, the plaintiff filed suit claiming interest on delayed payment of pension and gratuity. Courts below have awarded interest on delayed payments at the rate of 12% per annum since 03.02.1992 i.e since six months after the death of the employee, till actual release of the pension and gratuity. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that case for retiral benefits was sent belatedly by the school authorities and there was no delay on the part of the appellants. The contention is not borne out from the material on record. Learned counsel for the appellants referred to paragraph 8 of the judgment of the trial Court. It depicts that according to testimony of Deputy Education Officer appearing as PW-3, pension case of the deceased was received in their office in October 1992, but was sent back with some objections and was again received in March, 1993 and was again sent back with some objections in March, 1993 itself. However, learned counsel for RSA No.3563 of 2010(O & M) -4- the appellants is unable to point out as to when the case was again received back by the District Education Officer after March, 1993. The retiral benefits were released on 29.07.1997. There is no explanation for this entire long delay. Consequently, grant of interest at the rate of 12% per annum for delayed payment of pension and gratuity of the deceased employee does not warrant interference in second appeal. Courts below have already granted reasonable period of six months after the death of the employee for release of the said benefits. Further delay of almost 5 ½ years stands unexplained and the plaintiff has been rightly held entitled to interest for the said delay. It is well-settled by catena of judgments of this Court as well as of Supreme Court that delayed release of retiral benefits makes the authority liable to pay interest for the delay. Thus Courts below have rightly granted interest on delayed payments of pension and gratuity of the deceased employee. There is no infirmity much less illegality or perversity in the judgments of the Courts below so as to warrant interference in second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The appeal is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed. 06.09.2010. ( L. N. MITTAL ) A. Kaundal JUDGE