Nalini Padhi And Another vs Dr. Sugyan Kumar Mohanty

K.R. Mohapatra, J

IA No.345 of 2019 &RPFAM No.180 of 2019

1.This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

This IA has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 325 days in filing the RPFAM.

Learned counsel for the Petitioners relying upon averments made in the IA submits that though the impugned order was passed on 19th June, 2018, but most unfortunately the Petitioner No.1 suffered from “Polyarthritis multiple joint pain with Lumbago and Thyroid Dysfunction” for which she could not attend her duty properly. She was under complete bed rest for one year as advised by her doctor, namely, Dr.J.K. Mishra, at Bhubaneswar. She could not contact her counsel to file the instant RPFAM in time. Hence, he prays for to condone the delay and to entertain the RPFAM on merit.

The Opposite party filed counter affidavit to the above specifically at paragraph-8 stating that the plea that the Petitioner was under complete bed rest for one year is a myth. She was serving as a teacher in a privately managed School at Bhubaneswar and was attending the School regularly. In reply to that the Petitioner filed an affidavit admitting that she was working as a teacher in an English Medium School during the aforesaid period and was drawing salary of Rs.5,000/- per month, which was a contractual service. It is also stated in the said affidavit that the Petitioner was constrained to work as a teacher to meet her financial requirements. In support of her illness she has also enclosed certain documents, which do not disclose that the Petitioner was advised to take bed rest.

In view of the above, the plea taken by the petitioner appears to be false. Accordingly, I am not inclined to condone the inordinate delay of 325 days in filing the RPFAM.

Accordingly, the IA stands dismissed.

In view of dismissal of the IA, the RPFAM also stands dismissed.

Issue urgent certified copy of the order on proper application.

.........................................