Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Jharkhand High Court

The State Of Jharkhand Through The Chief ... vs Dipesh Chandra Trivedi And Ors on 22 August, 2016

Author: D.N.Patel

Bench: D.N. Patel, Ratnaker Bhengra

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                           I.A. No. 9195 of 2013
                                     with
                           I.A. No. 9196 of 2013
                                     in
                           L.P.A. No. 392 of 2013

The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Department
of Finance, Government of Jharkhand having its office at Project
Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi
                                                    ...     ...     Appellant
                                 Versus
1.    Dipesh Chandra Trivedi, Son of Late Tapesh Chandra Trivedi,
resident of Village Aliganj Mohallah, P.O. Pakur, P.S. Pakur, District
Pakur
                                       ...  ...  Respondent/Petitioner
2.    The Deputy Commissioner, P.O. Pakur, P.S. Pakur, District Pakur
3.    The Additional Commissioner, Finance Department, Government
of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.
Dhurwa, District Ranchi
4.    The Secretary Cum Commissioner, Finance Department,
Government of Jharkhand, having its Office at Project Bhawan, Dhurwa
P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi
                   ...   ....          Respondents/Performa Respondents
                                ------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N. PATEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA

-----

For the Appellant:       Mr. Lukesh Kumar
For the Respondents: Mr. Manish Kumar
                                -----
            nd
15/Dated 22 August, 2016
Per D.N.Patel,J.
I.A. No. 9195 of 2013

1. Present interlocutory application has been preferred under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for condonation of delay of 263 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal.

2. Having heard counsel for the both sides and looking to the reasons stated in the interlocutory application, especially in paragraph No.s 4 onwards , it appears that there are reasonable grounds for condonation of delay.

3. In view of these facts, we hereby, condone the delay in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal. Accordingly, I.A. No. 9195 of 2013 is allowed and disposed of.

4. Having heard counsel appearing for both sides and looking to the contentious issues raised in this Letters Patent Appeal, it is Admitted.

5. Counsel appearing for the respondents waives Notice of Admission.

6. Having heard counsels appearing for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that there is no prima-facie case in favour of this applicant-appellant so far as recovery of the amount of 7 lacs towards pension is concerned. It appears that pension has already been paid to the respondent, who has retired in the year 1977. Thus, there is no prima-facie case in favour of this applicant-appellant. Balance of convenience is also not in favour of this applicant-appellant as no irreparable loss is also going to be caused to the applicant-appellant if stay is not granted against the order impugned in this Letters Patent Appeal, i.e. Order dated 1st February, 2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 3353 of 2008. The matter involves a monetary claim of 7 lacs and odd and therefore, so far as recovery is concerned, this is not a sum which cannot be compensated after disposal of this Letters Patent Appeal.

7. We, therefore, see no reason to grant stay against the operation, execution and implementation of the order dated 1st February, 2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 3353 of 2008.

Even counsel for the applicant-appellant is not in a position to point out as to the amount of monthly pension paid by the appellant State. Thus, there is no question of staying of the monthly pension because the respondent might be involved in fodder scam, but, he can not live on fodder. Therefore, status quo will be maintained with respect to the bare minimum amount of monthly pension which the respondent is presently getting subject to the outcome of this Letters Patent Appeal.

8. This Interlocutory Application is, accordingly, dismissed.

(D.N.Patel, J.) (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) s.m.