Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 8038 of 2010
IN
Special Appeal (D) No. 24 of 2010
*****
Hon’ble C.K. Prasad,CJ
Hon’ble Pankaj Mithal,J
This application has been filed for condoning the
delay in filing the appeal.
According to the Stamp Reporter, appeal is barred by
limitation by 109 days.
Various reasons, which prevented the appellant from
filing the special appeal within time have been enumerated
in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation
application.
We are of the opinion that the same constitute
sufficient cause for condoning the delay.
Accordingly, delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
Application stands allowed.
Date: 13.01.2010
RK/ (C.K. Prasad, CJ)
(Pankaj Mithal,J)
Special Appeal (D) No. 24 of 2010
Bhaganoo Chauhan vs. The Union of India and others
*****
Hon’ble C.K. Prasad,CJ
Hon’ble Pankaj Mithal,J
Writ petitioner-appellant, aggrieved by order dated 21.8.2009
passed by a learned Single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10179
of 1993, has preferred this appeal under Rule 5 Chapter VIII of the High
Court Rules.
Mr. Rahul Mishra appears on behalf of the appellant. Mr. R.B.
Singhal, Assistant Solicitor General of India along with Mr. S.K. Rai
appears for Union of India.
Writ petitioner-appellant (hereinafter referred to as ‘petitioner’) was
a candidate for appointment as Airman (Technical) in the Indian Air
Force. By order dated 17.1.1990, he was declared temporary medically
unfit and the representation against the aforesaid order, was ultimately
dismissed by order dated 19.11.1992. The petitioner challenged the
aforesaid order in the writ application. The learned Single Judge by the
impugned order had quashed the order impugned in the writ petition but
declined to direct consideration of his case for appointment instead he
directed for payment of compensation of Rs. 1.00 lac and Rs.25,000/- as
cost of litigation.
Petitioner, aggrieved by the order by which the learned Single
Judge has declined to direct consideration of his case for appointment,
the quantum of compensation and the cost of litigation, has preferred this
appeal.
Mr. Rahul Mishra, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits
that age of retirement of Airman (Technical) is 57 years and the
petitioner having attained the age of 37 years only, nothing prevented this
Court to direct for consideration of his case for appointment.
We do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Mishra. The
learned Single Judge has taken into account that appointment is in the
Indian Air Force and the petitioner having attained the age of 37 years
had crossed the upper age limit for appointment. Not only this, for being
the member of the Force, certain training is required to be given. Taking
into account the aforesaid fact, the learned Single Judge declined to
direct for reconsideration of his case for appointment. We are of the
opinion that exercise of discretion does not suffer from any error calling
for interference in the appeal.
Mr. Mishra then submits that petitioner ought to have been granted
higher compensation and cost. It is well settled that grant of
compensation and cost is within the discretion of the Court and such
order is not interfered in the appeal unless it suffers from any perversity.
We are of the opinion that grant of compensation to the extent of
Rs. 1.00 lac and cost of Rs. 25,000/- to the petitioner does not suffer
from any error.
It is relevant to state that against the grant of compensation,
Union of India has preferred Special Appeal (D) No. 1252 of 2009,
which has been dismissed by order dated 26.11.2009.
We do not find any merit in the appeal and it is dismissed
accordingly.
Date: 13.01.2010 RK/ (Pankaj Mithal,J) (C.K. Prasad, CJ)