Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhpal Kaur vs Union Of India And Others on 13 August, 2010
Author: K. C. Puri
Bench: Ashutosh Mohunta, K. C. Puri
C.M.No.4962 CWP of 2010 in 1
C.M.No.2370 of 2009 and in
C.M.No.9516 of 2010 and
R.A.No.166 of 2010 in
Civil Writ Petition No.13148-CAT of 2004.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
C.M.No.4962 of 2010 in
C.M.No.2370 of 2009 and in
C.M.No.9516 of 2010 and
R.A.No.166 of 2010 in
Civil Writ Petition No.13148-CAT of 2004.
Date of decision : 13- 8-2010.
Sukhpal Kaur.
... Petitioner.
Versus
Union of India and others.
... Respondents.
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. C. PURI.
Present: Mr. K. S. Grewal Advocate for the applicant-petitioner.
Mr. Vikram Bajaj, Advocate for the applicant-respondents.
K. C. PURI, J.
This order will dispose of C.M.No.4962 of 2010 and C.M.No.2370 of 2009 filed in Civil Writ Petition No.13148-CAT of 2004 by - applicant-petitioner-Sukhpal Kaur for revival of Civil Misc. C.M.No.4962 CWP of 2010 in 2 C.M.No.2370 of 2009 and in C.M.No.9516 of 2010 and R.A.No.166 of 2010 in Civil Writ Petition No.13148-CAT of 2004.
Application No.2370 of 2009 whereas applicant-respondents Union of India also moved Civil Misc. No.9516 of 2010 for condonation of long delay of two years and four months in filing Review Application No.166 of 2010 in Civil Writ Petition No.13148 of 2004, which was decided on 14.2.2008.
It has been averred by the applicant-petitioner that she has moved Civil Misc. Application No.2370 of 2009 in Civil Writ Petition No.13148 of 2004 for grant of interest and exemplary costs before this Bench on 27.3.2009 but learned counsel for the Union of India produced a copy of stay order passed by Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court adjourned the matter sine die. Now Hon'ble Apex Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition moved by the respondents-UOI, therefore, the applicant-petitioner prayed for taken up the matter for disposal.
The respondent-Union of India on the other hand alleged that the SLP (Civil) No.31083 of 2008 in the Hon'ble Supreme Court, was dismissed only on 15.3.2010 and left the question of law open.
In the review application, it has been alleged by the applicant-respondents that this Court in CWP No.13148-CAT of 2004 held that from a reading of Rule 38 of the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, the petitioner was entitled to invalid pension irrespective of the service rendered by the deceased employee i.e. her C.M.No.4962 CWP of 2010 in 3 C.M.No.2370 of 2009 and in C.M.No.9516 of 2010 and R.A.No.166 of 2010 in Civil Writ Petition No.13148-CAT of 2004.
husband. The impugned order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, vide which it was held that a reading of Rules 38 and 49 of Pension Rules together shows that invalid pension can be allowed only after the deceased employee has rendered ten years of service. The judgment passed by this Court dated 14.2.2008 was in ignorance of a judgment dated 16.5.2007 pronounced by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.686 of 2005 -Union of India and another Vs. Bashirbhai R.Khilji (2007) 6 Supreme Court Cases 16, wherein it has been held that for grant of any kind of pension one has to put in the minimum ten years of qualifying service. Therefore, the applicant-respondents prayed for review of order dated 14.2.2008 passed by this Court.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case.
The respondents have filed review application. In order to proper appreciation of the controversy and the legal position regarding review of the matter, Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure is reproduced as under :-
"114. Review. - Subject as aforesaid, any person considering himself aggrieved -
(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by this Code, but from which no appeal has been preferred, C.M.No.4962 CWP of 2010 in 4 C.M.No.2370 of 2009 and in C.M.No.9516 of 2010 and R.A.No.166 of 2010 in Civil Writ Petition No.13148-CAT of 2004.
(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by this Code, or ( c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small causes, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order, and the Court may make such order thereon as it thinks fit."
So, from the bare reading of Section 114 of the CPC, It is clear that review application lies only if the order from which an appeal is allowed but no appeal has been preferred. In the present case, admittedly, the Union of India preferred an appeal bearing Special Leave to Appeal © No.31080 of 2008 and the same has been dismissed vide order dated 15.3.2010 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
Further, there is a delay of two years and four months in filing the review application. The grounds mentioned in the application for condonation of delay is due to filing the appeal, before the Hon'ble Apex Court, the appeal was dismissed on 15.3.2010. The application for condonation of delay has been filed on 20.7.2010. Therefore, there is unexplained delay of more than four months.
So, in view of above circumstances, we have no hesitation in holding that the review application is not maintainable and as such dismissed being not maintainable. It is also dismissed being time barred. C.M.No.4962 CWP of 2010 in 5 C.M.No.2370 of 2009 and in C.M.No.9516 of 2010 and R.A.No.166 of 2010 in Civil Writ Petition No.13148-CAT of 2004.
CM No.2370 of 2010
The application for recalling the order dated 11.7.2008 in respect of grant of interest. The relevant part of order dated 11.7.2008 is reproduced as under :-
"After hearing counsel for the applicant-petitioner we dispose of this writ application with a direction to the respondents to pay all the dues as directed vide order dated 14.2.2008, within a period of three months from today.
The prayer for the grant of interest, is however, declined."
So, from the bare reading of the said order, it is revealed that the interest was knowingly not granted. The petitioner has remedy to challenge that order before the Apex Court but the same has not been availed. So, the application for recalling the order regarding grant of interest stands declined.
However, Union of India was granted three months time to pay all the dues amount from 11.7.2008 onwards. Admittedly, no amount has been paid by the Union of India till today. The amount should have been paid by the Union of India unless the said order is set aside by the Competent Court.
So, we are of the view that after the expiry of period of three months i.e. from September 11, 2008 onwards, the petitioner is entitled to interest @ 9% p.a. on the due amount till payment. C.M.No.4962 CWP of 2010 in 6 C.M.No.2370 of 2009 and in C.M.No.9516 of 2010 and R.A.No.166 of 2010 in Civil Writ Petition No.13148-CAT of 2004.
So, the Civil Misc. stands disposed of accordingly.
( K. C. PURI )
JUDGE
August 13th, 2010. ( ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA )
sv JUDGE