Divisional Railway Manager vs Smt Leela Bai and others

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.—Heard. This is a first appeal filed by the defendant (Union of India -Railways) u/s 19(1) of the Family Courts Act against the judgment and decree dated 22.11.2011 passed by the Family Court, Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in C.S. No. 37A/2010.

By the impugned judgment/decree, the learned trial Judge decreed plaintiff''s suit against the appellant (defendant) and granted a declaration as prayed by them in the suit.

So the short question which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the learned trial Judge was justified in decreeing plaintiff''s suit by granting declaration in their favour?

Facts of the case lie in a narrow compass.

One person by name "Adhari" was a railway employee. He was working as Gangman. He retired in the year 1995 on attaining the age of superannuation and started getting pension as per rules. He died on 30.5.2001.

The respondent No. 1 claiming to be his legally married wife approached to the railway authorities with a prayer to give her pensionary benefits after the death of Adhari, in terms of Pension Rules. The railway authorities declined to grant any benefit to her saying that since her name was not recorded in the railway records (pension book) as deceased''s wife and secondly, there is no evidence to prove her status as wife of deceased Adhari and hence, it will not be possible for the railway''s to give her any kind of benefits after the death of Adhari. It was said that respondent No. 1 should therefore approach the Court for a declaration that she is the legally married wife of deceased Adhari in case she is interested in claiming any kind of monetary benefit after his death.

The respondent No. 1 along with her two sons i.e respondents 2 and 3 then filed a suit, out of which, this appeal arises against the appellant (railway administration) claiming a declaration that the she is the legally married wife of Adhari and hence, entitled to claim all post retrial benefits which a widow of any deceased railway employee is entitled to claim from his employer. In support of her claim, she filed documents to show her marital relation with Adhari such as voter list containing her name as his wife, Bank accounts in which her status as wife of Adhari was mentioned, ration card in which her name was mentioned as his wife and panchayat certificate issued by the concerned Panchayat of the area where she used to live, certifying that she is the wife of Adhari

Though the suit was contested by the appellant, but they failed to adduce any evidence in rebuttal as against what was tendered by the plaintiff referred supra in evidence. The trial Court by impugned judgment and decree placed reliance on the documents filed by the plaintiff and while decreeing the plaintiff''s suit, granted the declaration as claimed by them. It was held that the plaintiff (respondent No. 1 herein) is legally married wife of Adhari. It is against this judgment and the decree, the Railway administration (defendant) has felt aggrieved and filed this appeal.

This appeal is barred by limitation of 142 days and therefore, the question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether any sufficient cause is made out for condonation of delay in filing the appeal or not?

In our opinion, the delay of 142 days is totally unexplained. It is indeed inordinate and thus cannot be condoned for want of any sufficient cause, which is required to be made out u/s 5 of the Limitation Act. Secondly, when the Act has given 60 days to file an appeal, then there is absolutely no reason as to why the appellants waited for 142 days to file an appeal. Thirdly, the appellant is not a rustic villager, who is usually not conversant with the legal intricacies of limitation prescribed under the Law of Limitation. On the other hand, the appellant(s) being the Union of India (Railway administration) is always advised by the office of their Standing Counsel and Legal Managers on day to day basis in the matter of filing cases in Courts. In our view, the usual ground that administrative sanction was not granted due to which delay in filing appeals was caused does not appear to be bonafide cause because no department would take 142 days to decide as to whether appeal should be filed or not against such order. That apart, neither proper facts are pleaded nor any documents are filed in support of such allegations, except usual averments.

In view of foregoing discussions, we are of the opinion that no case is made out on facts for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The application i.e. I.A. No. 01 is thus liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly, dismissed.

Since we are dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation and hence, it is not necessary for us to deal with the controversy involved in this appeal on the merits, yet with a view to find out as to whether the trial Court was right in its approach while decreeing the plaintiff''s suit, we perused the record of the case. Having so perused, we are of the considered view that the trial Court was justified in decreeing plaintiff''s suit and we, therefore, affirm the decree on merits also.

In fact, in the light of such voluminous evidence adduced by the plaintiff as mentioned supra, coupled with the fact that the defendant failed to lead any evidence in rebuttal to deny the status of respondent No. 1, the learned trial Judge was fully justified in decreeing respondent/plaintiff''s suit and granting her the declaration of she being the legally married wife of deceased "Adhari." Indeed, we fail to appreciate as to what was there for the defendant to even contest the case of the plaintiff on facts either before the trial Court or before this Court in appeal except bare denial made in the written statement.

The only argument of learned counsel for the appellant was that the suit filed by the plaintiff was barred by limitation and therefore it should have been dismissed on the ground of limitation.

The submission to say the least is untenable and deserves to be rejected. In the first place, this objection was not raised by the appellant before the trial Court. Secondly, no issue was framed by the trial Court on such objection for want of any factual foundation. That apart the objection of limitation even if raised has no merit for the simple reason that cause of action to file the suit arose to plaintiff after the railway administration denied the claim of the plaintiff. The suit was filed within three years from the date of such denial and was, therefore, very much within limitation.

This case reminds us of the subtle observations of the eminent Chief Justice Hon''ble M.C. Chagla made in case reported in Firm Kaluram Sitaram v. The Dominion of India, AIR 1954 Bombay 50 (Vol. 41. C.N. 8), wherein, in an appeal filed by the citizen against the railway administration claiming money compensation, the learned Chief Justice speaking for the bench held as under :

(12) Now, we have often had occasion to say that when the State deals with a citizen it should not ordinarily rely on technicalities, and if the State is satisfied that the case of the citizen is a just one, even though legal defences may be open to it, it must act, as has been said by eminent Judges, as an honest person.

The aforesaid observations fully apply to the facts of the case for deciding the issue sought to be raised by the plaintiff in this case against the appellant (railway administration)

Before parting with the case, we are constrained to observe that this was not a case, which should have been even contested before the trial Court by the Railway administration much less in appeal. A widow having lost his husband was unnecessary forced to file a suit for a genuine cause, which could have been sorted out at the departmental level by the Railway Officials on the strength of documents filed in the Court. Despite Supreme Court consistent observations made in such type of cases deprecating the practice of Government and their agencies/authorities in filing and prosecuting fruitless litigation in Courts, we notice that there has been no change while dealing with such issues. We deprecate this practice of filing such frivolous cases in Courts without first examining as to whether it is really necessary to file or defend such case. It is only when it is noticed that case involves any challenge to policy of Government affecting the interest of several employees or when it involves substantial money or where some long lasting impact is likely to occur if adverse decision is allowed to remain, then only, the cases should be contested else not. It is hoped that some serious introspection would be made on such issue by the authorities concerned responsible for taking decision to avoid prosecution of frivolous litigation at the instance of the Government.

In the light of foregoing discussion, the appeal fails and is dismissed with compensatory cost of Rs. 10,000/- payable by the appellant to the respondents for the suit, out of which, this appeal arises. Let the cost be deposited within three months from today in executing Court by the appellant and compliance of the impugned judgment and decree be also made within three months from the date of this order in favour of the respondents to avoid any further delay and inconvenience. A copy of this order be sent to the respondents for their information and one copy be sent to executive Court for ensuring compliance.