Jammu & Kashmir High Court
State Of J&K (Now Union vs Prithvi Raj Sharma S/O Sh on 9 October, 2024
Bench: Sanjeev Kumar, Sanjay Dhar
Sr. No. 39
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
LPA No. 197/2023
CM No. 6581/2023
CM No. 6582/2023
1. State of J&K (Now Union .... Petitioner/Appellant(s)
Territory) Through
Commissioner/Secretary
to Government General
Administration
Department, Civil
Secretariat
Jammu/Srinagar.
2. Divisional Commissioner,
Kashmir Srinagar.
Through:- Mr. Sumeet Bhatia, GA
V/s
Prithvi Raj Sharma S/o Sh. .....Respondent(s)
Mansa Ram Sharma R/o House
No. 237/4-B, Shanti Nagar,
Near Indira Public School,
Janipur, Jammu
Through:- Mr. Nitin Bhasin, Advocate
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE
ORDER
09.10.2024
For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.
The delay of 1593 days in filing the appeal is, accordingl,
condoned.
1. Admit. Issue post admission notice. Post admission notice waived
by Mr. Nitin Bhasin, Advocate on behalf of the respondent.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on
record.
3. The instant appeal under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent Appeal is
directed against the judgment dated 22.04.2019 passed by the learned
Single Judge (for short "Writ Court") in OWP No. 611/2015 titled Prithvi
Raj Sharma Vs. State of J&K and others, whereby the writ Court has
directed the appellants to pay an interest @ 6 % per annum from the date
of incident i.e. 09.06.1984 till passing of the Government Order dated
19.12.2013. The impugned judgment is assailed by the appellants
primarily on the ground that prior to filing of OWP No. 611/2015, the
respondent had filed OWP No. 29/2005 which was disposed of by the
learned Single Bench of this Court vide order dated 01.03.2010. It is
submitted that the learned Single Judge while disposing of OWP No.
29/2005 had not directed for payment of interest and, therefore, the
respondent could not have file another petition seeking interest on the
amount payable under Government Order No. 1421-GD of 1984 dated
09.08.1984.
4. Mr. Sumeet Bhatia, learned GA submits that the relief of interest
which was not granted in the earlier round of litigation shall be deemed to
have been rejected by this Court, therefore, could not have been made
subject matter of claim in the subsequent petition.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material on record, we are of the considered opinion that no fault could be
found with the judgment impugned which is perfectly legal and in
consonance with law.
6. In the earlier round of litigation, the learned Single Bench of this
Court has disposed of OWP No. 29/2005 by directing the appellants
herein to consider the case of the respondent in accordance with the
mandate of Government Order No. 1421-GD of 1984 dated 09.08.1984.
The matter was considered by the appellants and the respondent was
found entitled to a sum of Rs. 73,650/- and, accordingly, said amount was
disbursed vide Government Order dated 19.12.2013. Since there was a
considerable delay in paying the amount and no interest was paid, the
respondent filed OWP No. 611/2015 claiming interest on the amount from
the date of incident. The case of the respondent was considered and a
conclusion was drawn that since the amount was without any reason and
justification withheld as such, the appellants are liable to compensate the
respondent by payment of interest @ 6 % per annum.
7. The plea of res judicata raised by learned counsel for the
appellants would not be attracted in the case for the simple reason that in
the earlier round of litigation, there was no adjudication on merits and
only direction was to consider the case in the light of the Government
Order in question.
8. For all these reasons, we find no merit in this appeal and the same
is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Sanjay Dhar) (Sanjeev Kumar)
Judge Judge
Jammu:
09.10.2024
Tarun/PS
Whether the order is speaking? Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable? Yes/No
