Binod Kumar Sharma vs The Bharat Coking Coal Ltd
2025 Latest Caselaw 662 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Binod Kumar Sharma vs The Bharat Coking Coal Ltd on 9 July, 2025

Author: Rajesh Shankar

Bench: Rajesh Shankar

                                                         2025:JHHC:18385-DB




       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                       L.P.A. No.400 of 2024
                                 With
                        I.A. No.972 of 2025
                                  -----

Binod Kumar Sharma, S/o Late Ram Krishna Sharma, R/o Punjabi Mohalla, P.O. & P.S. Katras, District-Dhanbad.

.......... Appellant.

-Versus-

1. The Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, Dhanbad.

2. The Director (Personnel), Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, Dhanbad.

3. The General Manager (Personnel), Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, Dhanbad.

4. The Area Personnel Manager, Katras Area, Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., Salanpur Colliery, Katrasgarh, Katras, Dhanbad.

5. The Project Officer, Salanpur Colliery, Katrasgarh, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Katras, Dhanbad.

.......... Respondents.

-----

         CORAM :           HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
                       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
                                  -----
         For the Appellant :         Mr. P.K. Mukhopadhyay, Advocate
         For the Respondents:        Mr. Anoop Kr. Mehta, Advocate
                                     Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate
                                  -----
         Order No.07                                 Date: 09.07.2025

1. I.A. No.972 of 2025 has been filed under Section 5 of the

Limitation Act, 1963 to condone delay of 580 days in filing the

LPA challenging the judgment dated 5th December, 2022 passed

in W.P.(S) No.5277 of 2011 by the learned Single Judge.

2. Though it is stated in the application for condonation of delay that

the applicant is an aged person and that he was suffering from

severe backache with cellubis of both knees and had difficulty in

walking, we are of the opinion that the said reason assigned for

not filing the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation for

preferring the LPA, cannot be accepted.

2025:JHHC:18385-DB

3. Other plea raised by the applicant is that there is paucity of

money for filing appeal. Since the applicant could have availed

legal aid for preferring the LPA within time, we are also not

inclined to entertain this plea.

4. We are satisfied that sufficient cause has not been shown by the

appellant for condoning the said inordinate period of delay.

Therefore, application for condonation of delay is dismissed.

5. Consequently, LPA is also dismissed.

(M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)

(Rajesh Shankar, J.) Sanjay/Rohit