Jharkhand High Court
The Deputy Development ... vs Urmila Devi on 15 July, 2025
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
2025:JHHC:19133-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 259 of 2025
1. The Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive
Officer, Zila Parishad, Hazaribagh, P.O. & P.S. and District-Hazaribagh.
2. The District Engineer, Zila Parishad, Hazaribagh, P.O. & P.S. and
District- Hazaribagh. ... ... Appellants
Versus
1. Urmila Devi, aged about 70 years, Wife of Late Krishna Murari,
Resident of Fateh Singh Ki Dhani, Back side of stadium, P.O. & village-
Bhondsi, P.S.- Bhondsi, District- Gurgaon (Haryana).
2. The State of Jharkhand
3. The Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, P.O. + P.S. & - District-
Hazariabagh. ... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
---------
For the Appellants : Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. Suraj Prakash, AC to SC-VII.
---------
C.A.V. On: 07.07.2025 Pronounced On: 15.07.2025
Per M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.
I.A. No. 6101 of 2025 in/and L.P.A. No. 259 of 2025
This application is filed by the applicants under Section 5 of
the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone delay of 768 days in filing the
Letters Patent Appeal challenging the judgment dt.04.01.2023 of the
learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 6011 of 2019.
2. It is contended on behalf of the applicants that they had filed a
Civil Review No. 31 of 2023 before the learned Single Judge which
was also dismissed on 14.02.2025.
3. It is contended that the record of the case was then placed by
the applicants before the counsel for the Zila Parishad, Hazaribagh and
he had given opinion to prefer L.P.A. against the judgment of the
learned Single Judge. Thereafter the D.D.C.-cum-Chief Executive
Officer, Zila Parishad, Hazaribagh gave instructions to prepare draft
-1 of 3-
2025:JHHC:19133-DB
L.P.A., and thereafter the L.P.A. was filed on 12.03.2025, and on
account of this reason, there was a delay of 768 days which is required
to be condoned.
4. We may point out that the applicants were challenging the
order dt.04.01.2023 in W.P. (S) No. 6011 of 2019 passed by the learned
Single Judge by filing this L.P.A. on 12.03.2025 after a delay of 768
days.
5. In the said Writ petition in the judgment dt.04.01.2023, the
learned Single Judge had noted that the husband of the respondent No.1
had approached this Court previously in C.W.J.C. No. 2618 of 2000
which was disposed of on 08.02.2001 with a direction to pay retiral
benefits within one month, failing which the applicants would be liable
to pay penal interest @ 8 per cent on the retiral benefits; the retiral
benefits were paid to the respondent No. 1 after the death of her
husband in 2018, but interest thereon was not paid, and in view of the
previous order dt.08.02.2001, the applicants had to pay the said interest
within four months.
6. In the Review application also, the learned Single Judge
rejected the review on 14.02.2025 recording that interest was to be paid
in terms of the judgment dt.08.02.2001 in C.W.J.C. No. 2618 of 2000,
that he had followed the same judgment while granting relief in
W.P.(S) No. 6011 of 2019, and the applicants cannot be permitted to
bring on new documents and argue on merits of the case.
7. Admittedly, the applicants had not challenged by way of an
L.P.A., the order dt. 08.02.2001 in C.W.J.C. No. 2618 of 2000 and had
-2 of 3-
2025:JHHC:19133-DB
allowed it to attain finality. They cannot be permitted to question the
direction to pay interest in terms of the said order granted by the
learned Single Judge in his judgment dt.04.01.2023 in W.P. (S)
No.6011 of 2019 on the ground of bar of res judicata.
8. Moreover, the instant L.P.A. was filed with a delay of 768
days challenging the judgment dt.04.01.2023 in W.P. (S) No. 6011 of
2019 and at this distance of time, notwithstanding the filing of a review
petition by the applicants, such an inordinate delay to file L.P.A.
against the judgment in W.P. (S) No. 6011 of 2019 cannot be
condoned.
9. Therefore, the application for condonation of delay is
dismissed. Consequently, the L.P.A. is dismissed not only on ground of
delay but also on merits.
(M. S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
APK
-3 of 3-
