Delhi High Court
Chairman Central Board Of ... vs S.P.Rana on 7 January, 2021
$~12 & 13
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 270/2020
S.P. RANA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. N. Bhushan, Adv. for Mr. Rajiv
Agarwal, Adv.
Versus
THE CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF
SECONDARY EDUCATION ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. M.A. Niyazi, Ms. Anamika
Niyazi, Ms. Kumud Nijhawan, Ms.
Neymat Sethi and Ms. Kirti Jaswal,
Advs.
AND
+ LPA 6/2021
THE CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF
SECONDARY EDUCATION ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. M.A. Niyazi, Ms. Anamika
Niyazi, Ms. Kumud Nijhawan, Ms.
Neymat Sethi and Ms. Kirti Jaswal,
Advs.
Versus
S.P.RANA ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. N. Bhushan, Adv. for Mr. Rajiv
Agarwal, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 07.01.2021
[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]
CM No.509/2021 in LPA No.6/2021 (for exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions and as per extant rules.
2. The application is disposed of.
LPA No.270/2020 & LPA No.6/2021 & CM No.508/2021 in LPA
No.6/2021 (for condonation of 116 days' delay in preferring the appeal)
3. Both appeals, filed invoking Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act,
1966 and the Letters Patent of this Court, arise out of the order dated 11th
September, 2020 in W.P.(C) No.13109/2019 filed by Central Board of
Secondary Education (CBSE) impugning the order dated 14th August, 2019
of the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 of
dismissal as barred by time of the appeal preferred by the CBSE against the
order dated 25th February, 2019 of the Controlling Authority under the said
Act. Vide the impugned order in both the appeals, the Single Judge, after
hearing the counsels, held that there was no error in the order of the
Appellate Authority insofar as dismissing the appeal of the CBSE as barred
by time and holding that under the said Act, there is no power in the
Appellate Authority to condone the delay in filing the appeal. However
after holding so, the Single Judge, from a reading of the impugned order it
appears, also heard the counsels on the contention of the counsel for CBSE,
relying on the recent dicta of the Supreme Court in Chairman-cum-
Managing Director, Mahanadi Coalfields Limited. Vs. Rabindranath
Choubey 2020 SCC OnLine SC 470, that gratuity can be withheld during
the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, under Section 4(6) of the said
Act and after partly hearing the counsels on the said aspect, adjourned
further hearing to 17th November, 2020.
4. We are informed that in view of pendency of LPA No.270/2020 (LPA
No.6/2021 has come up today for the first time), the Single Judge, on 17th
November, 2020, has adjourned the hearing to 15th January, 2021.
5. S.P. Rana aforesaid, has filed LPA No.270/2020 contending that the
Single Judge erred in, after holding against the CBSE on the aspect of
condonation of delay in filing the appeal, which was the only point
pleaded/urged in the writ petition, not dismissing the writ petition and
keeping the same pending. The said appeal came up first before this Court
on 28th September, 2020, when notice thereof was ordered to be issued and
pleadings ordered to be completed.
6. CBSE, after appearing in LPA No.270/2020 filed by S.P. Rana, has
today brought its own LPA, being LPA No.6/2021 impugning the order of
the Single Judge to the extent holding against CBSE on the aspect of power
of the Appellate Authority under the said Act to condone the delay in filing
the appeal.
7. We have heard the counsels.
8. We are of the view that LPA No.270/2020 preferred by S.P. Rana is
not maintainable, as the order dated 11th September, 2020 does not qualify
as a 'judgment' or decides 'matters of moment' and does not affect vital or
valuable rights of S.P. Rana and does not work serious injustice to S.P.Rana,
within the meaning of the judgment of the Full the Full Bench of this Court
in Jaswinder Singh vs. Mrigendra Pritam Vikramsingh Steiner 196 (2013)
DLT (1). Reference in this regard may also be made to Life Insurance
Corporation of India vs Sanjee Builders Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 11 SCC 722.
The matter is still at large before the Single Judge and the powers of the
Single Judge to hear the counsels, before finally deciding, cannot be so
curtailed, as is being sought to be done by S.P. Rana.
9. LPA No.270/2020 is thus dismissed as not maintainable.
10. As far LPA No.6/2021 preferred by CBSE is concerned, though there
is indeed a finding in the impugned order against CBSE on the aspect of
powers of the Appellate Authority under the Act to condone delay in
preferring the appeal but since the writ petition filed by CBSE is still
pending, it cannot be said that it has been decided against CBSE. If the writ
petition, notwithstanding the finding on the aspect of powers of the
Appellate Authority under the Act, is ultimately allowed, the finding qua
powers of the Appellate Authority under the Act to condone the delay in
preferring the appeal will remain a mere finding and against a mere finding
no appeal lies, if the final order is in favour of the party against whom a
finding is returned. Reference if any required may be made to State of
Andhra Pradesh vs P. Ranga Reddy MANU/SC/1074/2019.
11. Be that as it may, even if there were to be any doubt on the said
aspect, we clarify that in the event of the writ petition being finally also
decided against CBSE, CBSE, in the appeal, if any preferred against the
final order, shall also be entitled to challenge the finding against it in the
order dated 11th September, 2020 and the said challenge will not be treated
as barred by time, as long as the remedy against the final order is taken
within the prescribed time.
12. LPA No.6/2021 is disposed of with the said direction.
13. With the aforesaid, both the appeals stand disposed of.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
SANJEEV NARULA, J.
JANUARY 7, 2021
'bs'
