Neelam Devi vs Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and Others

This appeal has been filed with a delay of 261 days for which an application for condonation of delay (I.A. NO. 2268 of 2009) also has been filed.

The delay has been explained on account of the medical ground of the appellant, sating that she was unwell due to which the appeal could not be filed within time.

Taking into consideration the health ground of the appellant, we thought it appropriate to condone the delay in filing the appeal and permit the counsel for the appellant to address us on the merit of the case. But, after hearing the counsel for the appellant, it is more than obvious that the delay had occurred since there is absolutely no substance in this appeal.

The petitioner-appellant had filed a writ petition before the learned Single Judge, claiming death cum retiral benefits of her deceased husband, which had been allowed by the learned Single Judge but with a rider that the penal rent be deducted by the authorities from the death cum retiral benefits as the appellant had illegally occupied the residential quarter, which her deceased husband had been occupying. This order was passed after taking the fact into consideration that the appellants son was also granted compassionate appointment in place of his deceased father and yet the appellant did not move out of the residential quarter which she had been occupying during the life time of her husband. The learned Single Judge, thus, although allowed the writ petition to the extent of directing the respondents to pay the death cum retiral benefits to the appellant, a direction was also issued to deduct the penal rent from the retrial benefits on account of unauthorized occupation by the appellant.

The appellant obviously acquiesced with the order passed by the learned Single Judge and received the payment but what prevailed upon her to file an appeal with a delay of 261 days on the ground of her bad health is not clear and hardly inspires confidence. But, even if we will to accept the health ground for delay in preferring, the appeal and we were to condone the delay, we find no grain of substance in this appeal as we see no reason why the penal rent should not have been deducted from the retiral benefits of her deceased husband when she had overstayed in the residential quarter inspite of the fact that compassionate appointment was allowed in favour of the son of the deceased. If the appellant was keen to have re-allotment of the same premises, obviously it was for the authorities to examine whether the son of the deceased would be entitled to the residential quarter of the same grade which the deceased husband of the appellant was entitled to. But the same could not offer a cause to the appellant to retain the premises. In that view of the matter, deduction of penal rent cannot be held to be unjustified, so as to interfere with the impugned order, ignoring huge delay of 261 days

Learned Counsel for the appellant however submitted that in cases of similar situation, penal rent has not been deducted. However neither those persons nor the circumstances are before this Court under which the penal rent were waived in their cases. So far as the present appeal is concerned, the appellant has already succeeded before the learned Single Judge and the death cum retiral benefits have already been paid to her after deducting the penal rent.

Learned Counsel however also assailed the computation of the penal rent which has been deducted from the death cum retrial benefits. But, by way of an appeal, we cannot enter into the computation of the amount of penal rant. If the penal rent has been wrongly calculated, obviously this cause, can be raised either before the competent authority by way of a fresh representation or by filing a review petition before the learned Single Judge.

Since we have permitted the counsel for the appellant to address on the merit of the appeal, the application for condonation of delay (I.A. No. 2968 of 2008) is treated as allowed. But in so far as this appeal is concerned, no good ground could be found so as to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. Consequently the appeal is dismissed at the admission stage itself.