Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Ut Of J&K And Ors vs Girdhari Lal on 22 July, 2025
Author: Rajnesh Oswal
Bench: Rajnesh Oswal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
(Through VC)
LPA No. 135/2025
CM No. 4134/2025
Reserved on 16.07.2025
Pronounced on 22.07.2025
UT of J&K and Ors.
.........Appellant(s)
Through:
Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG with
Ms. Sageera Jafer, Advocate
Versus
Girdhari Lal
.....Respondent(s)
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE
ORDER
Per OSWAL ‘J’
CM No. 4134/2025
01. This is an application, seeking condonation of delay in filing the
appeal against the Judgment dated 01.05.2024, passed by the
learned writ Court, whereby the writ petition bearing WP(C) No.
2352/2019, preferred by the original respondent, substituted by his
legal heirs, has been allowed.
02. The condonation of delay is being sought on the ground that after
the Judgment was rendered by the learned writ Court, vide
communication dated 08.05.2024, instructions were sought to
Mohammad Yaseen Dar
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document
2
proceed further in the matter and applicant No. 5, vide
communication dated 30.12.2024, approached the Department of
Finance to take up the matter with Law Department for legal
opinion. Vide U.O. dated 05.02.2025, the Law Department opined
to prefer LPA against the Judgment dated 01.05.2024 (supra).
03. The Registry has reported that there is a delay of 325 days in
preferring the appeal against the Judgment dated 01.05.2024.
Perusal of the application reveals that the applicant No. 5, after
issuance of communication dated 08.05.2024, approached the
Department of Finance for requisite instructions vide
communication dated 30.12.2024, meaning thereby that the
applicants remained in passive mode for more than 7½ months and
did not take any follow up action to assail the Judgment dated
01.05.2024 passed by the learned writ Court in WP(C) No.
2352/2019.
04. The diligence of the applicants in availing the remedy of appeal
within the prescribed period is evident from the fact that this
application has been filed against a dead person, as the respondent-
Girdari Lal had died during the pendency of the writ petition and
was substituted by his legal representatives as mentioned in the
title of the Judgment impugned.
05. Though some latitude can be granted to the applicants being ‘The
State’, provided there is merit in the case of the applicants.
Mohammad Yaseen Dar
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document
3
06. We have examined the Judgment dated 01.05.2024, passed by the
learned writ Court and we find that the learned writ Court after
taking note of the Judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in “State of Punjab and Others Vs. Rafiq Masih, AIR 2015
SC 696 and Thomas Daniel Vs. State of Kerala and Ors., 2022
LiveLaw (SC) 438″ and the Judgment of the Coordinate Bench of
this Court in “UT of J&K and Ors. Vs. Deshbir Singh and Anr.“,
has held the action of the applicants to effect recovery of
allowances drawn by the original respondent during his service as
bad in law, while leaving the applicants free to fix the pension of
the original respondent on the basis of last pay drawn after
deduction of the benefits under SRO 59 of 1990. The applicants
may be right in submitting that the original respondent was not
entitled to the benefit in terms of SRO 59 of 1990, but it is not the
case of the applicants that such benefit was drawn by the deceased
employee on account of any ‘fraud or misrepresentation” during
his service. The learned writ Court has rightly held the action of
the applicants in respect of recovery of excess payment made to
the respondent as bad in law.
07. Even on merits, the applicants have no case at all, as such no
leniency can be shown to the applicants, while considering the
issue of condonation of delay. This Court has examined the merits
of the claim of the applicants, while considering the issue of
condonation of delay, in light of the Judgment of the Hon’ble
Mohammad Yaseen Dar
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document
4
Supreme Court of India in Inder Singh Vs. The State of Madhya
Pradesh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 339.
08. In view of above, we do not find any reason to condone the delay
in filing the misconceived appeal, therefore, this application is
dismissed. As a corollary to the dismissal of the application, the
accompanying appeal is also dismissed on the above lines.
(RAJNESH OSWAL) (ARUN PALLI)
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Srinagar
22.07.2025
"Mohammad Yasin Dar"
Whether the Judgment is reportable: Yes/No.
Mohammad Yaseen Dar
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document
[ad_1]
Source link