State of H.P. and Others vs Bimla Devi and Another

V.K. Ahuja, J.—Present appeal has been preferred by the Appellants against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, dated 5.5.2010, passed in CWP No. 1845 of 2009, vide which the writ petition preferred by the Respondent has been allowed. Along with the present appeal, an application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed by the Appellants for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

We have heard the learned Deputy Advocate General for the Appellants in regard to application for condonation of delay.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case may be summarized as under leading to the filing of the present appeal.

The husband of the Respondent (hereinafter also referred to as the Petitioner) was in service in the State of Himachal Pradesh and he was serving as a Dhobi in the medical establishment of the State. He was posted under the Chief Medical Officer, District Kullu, where he worked as such till 13.6.2008, when he died due to a heart attach. The Petitioner, who was the widow of the deceased, filed the writ petition claiming a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- on the basis of Annexure P-2, which is a Group Insurance Scheme insuring an employee for a sum of Rs. 2.00 lacs, in the case of death. The said Scheme was circulated by the Finance Department to all the Drawing and Disbursing Officers. According to the Scheme, the State Government has also made an advance payment of Rs. 70,00,000/- on account of premium for approximately 1,40,000 employees of various departments which amount was paid to Respondent No. 2. The Petitioner was denied the payment of the amount on the ground that the Drawing and Disbursing Officer i.e. the Block Medical Officer, Ani had not deducted a sum of Rs. 50/- every month from the salary of the husband of the Petitioner as insurance premium. Thus, it was pleaded that the amount of insurance cannot be paid to the Petitioner.

The learned Single Judge considered the facts of the case and came to the conclusion that it was not the duty of the employee to ask his Drawing and Disbursing Officer to deduct the amount and the fault, if any, could be of the Block Medical Officer. The learned Single Judge had also relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking Vs. Basanti Devi and Another, wherein the Apex Court was seized of a similar case and it was observed that it was not the duty of the employee to remind his employer about the deduction of this amount from the salary and in the event of non-deduction, the contract of insurance would not come to an end. The learned Single Judge had accordingly allowed the writ petition directing the Respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 2.00 lac, alongwith interest.

The application for condoning the delay in filing the appeal, which is barred by 283 days, has been filed by the Appellants. A perusal of the application shows that no specific reasons have been recorded in the application for the delay of such a long period. The matter was very small one and it should not have taken much time with the Government to decide as to whether an appeal is to be preferred or not. However, no specific grounds have been given except that the matter was examined at Government level but why the delay took place and why sufficiently long time was taken in deciding to prefer an appeal is not made out from the assertions made in the application.

Keeping in view the facts of the case, as mentioned above, we are of the opinion that no case is made out for condoning the delay in filing the appeal and as such the application filed u/s 5 of the Limitation is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed, so also the other miscellaneous application(s), if any.