Allahabad Bank vs Asha Rani And Others

This is an assigned matter by virtue of order dated 8th February 2022 passed on the administrative side by Hon'ble the Chief Justice, High Court of Jharkhand.

Allahabad Bank is aggrieved of the order dated 11th December 2018 passed in WP(S) No. 1536 of 2015.

The wife of late Rakesh Kumar who was employed under Allahabad Bank approached the writ Court questioning legality of the order dated 18th March 2015 by which she was declined ex-gratia amount on the ground of adverse disciplinary background of her husband.

By the order dated 11th December 2018, the writ Court directed the authority to consider the claim of the writ petitioner within a period of four weeks.

This Letters Patent Appeal was filed on 15th February 2019, apparently after expiry of the period of limitation.

The appellant has not even cared to file an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay.

On 15th May 2019, the matter was posted before the Joint Registrar (Judicial) when no one appeared for the appellant. On 8th September 2020 also the appellant was not represented through his learned counsel when the matter was posted before the learned Registrar General.

The appellant has still not removed defect Nos. 1, 8 and 9 which were notified vide SR dated 15th February 2019.

From the proceedings in the present Letters Patent Appeal it appears that the appellant did not prosecute the matter diligently as LPA No. 130 of 2019 came up on Board for the first time on 5th January 2022.

More than one and half month have passed since then, still, the appellant has failed to take any step in the matter for removing the aforesaid defects.

After noticing the aforesaid proceedings which indicate lack of bona fide on the part of the appellant in prosecuting the present Letters Patent Appeal, to satisfy ourselves whether the present Letters Patent Appeal has any substance and whether Allahabad Bank would suffer serious prejudice and loss if indulgence is not granted by this Court, we have gone through the order dated 11th December 2018 wherein the learned writ Court in the background of the judgments in “Commissioner of Police v. Gordhandas Bhanji” AIR 1952 SC 16, “Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commr.” (1978) 1 SCC 405, “East Coast Railway v. Mahadev Appa Rao” (2010) 7 SCC 678, and “United Air Travel Services v. Union of India” (2018) 8 SCC 141 examined the matter and came to a conclusion that the action of the authority which is reflected in the order dated 18th March 2015 in denying ex-gratia to the wife of ex-employee cannot be countenanced in law, and by filing affidavit in the writ proceeding reasons could not have been supplied to support the said order.

Mr. Rohan Kashyap, the learned counsel for the appellant refers to clause-9 of the “Scheme for Payment of ex-gratia amount In Lieu of Appointment On Compassionate Grounds” to submit that ex-gratia cannot be paid to the dependent of the deceased employee without concurrence of the Committee of 3-Members or the Board of Director as the case maybe, if disciplinary proceeding was pending against the employee.

We find that what was the nature of charge against the husband of writ petitioner has not been disclosed. A copy of the charge-memo was not produced before the writ Court nor the same is before us. In the entire records, not even in the order dated 18th March 2015, there is any whisper about the nature of misconduct committed by the husband of writ petitioner.

This Court is of the opinion that the conduct of the appellant in not complying with the direction of the writ Court to consider the claim of the writ petitioner within four weeks presumably on the purported ground that it has challenged the said order by filing the present Letters Patent Appeal which, as noticed above, has remained pending in defects since 15th February 2019 lacks bona fide.

In any judicial proceeding the Court is required to examine bona fide of the parties. Suppression of material facts, filing of misleading affidavit etc. are good grounds not to entertain such petitions filed by a party to the litigation. Similarly, delay and laches in prosecuting the matter without any reasonable cause disentitle the applicant in seeking any relief from the Court. A negligent litigant does not deserve indulgence of the Court. The situation becomes worse when an appeal is filed against an order passed in favour of the opposite party. Not only serious prejudice is caused to the other party by delay in filing the petition and/or prosecuting the matter before the appellate Court, in some cases by the time the appeal is taken up on Board for hearing and finally decided the cause might be lost. Allahabad Bank which slept over the matter for more than two and half year and did not prosecute the present Letters Patent Appeal must suffer the consequences.

In the aforesaid facts, though there is no limitation petition and LPA No. 130 of 2019 still suffers from few defects, we decline to interfere in the matter and, accordingly, LPA No. 130 of 2019 is dismissed.