RANCHI, India, Feb. 22 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Jan. 20:

1. There is a 167-day delay in instituting this appeal.

2. The reasons for the delay are usual. However, we condone the delay, as the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that this is a matter in which excessive interest has been awarded along with costs.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants also pointed out that sometime was spent to obtain a legal opinion and for the preparation of the appeal memo.

4. Therefore, we condone the delay and disposed of this Interlocutory Application. L.P.A. No. 37 of 2025

5. Heard Mr. Abhijit Anand, learned A.C. to Sr. S.C.-I, for the appellants.

6. With the consent of the learned counsel for the appellants, this appeal is taken up for final disposal even though there was some issue of service upon the respondent.

7. This appeal questions the learned Single Judge's judgment and order dated 13.05.2024 in W.P.(S) No. 1845 of 2023 by which the appellants have been directed to pay the respondent (original petitioner), the death-cum-retiral benefits concerning the death of his father, an Executive Engineer in the Road Construction Department of the State of Jharkhand on 11.12.2001.

8. Mr Abhijit Anand, the learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that the writ petition in which the impugned order has been made was instituted after a delay of 13 years. He submitted that in the meanwhile, the writ petitioner was called upon to produce documents which he failed to produce. He submitted that there was no warrant for awarding interest at the rate of 9% per annum, and the cost of Rs. 2.5 lakhs in addition to the interest. On these grounds, and no others, he submitted that the appeal should be allowed and the learned Single Judge's impugned order must be set aside.

9. In this case, we had ordered notice to the respondent. However, there was some difficulty effecting service. Accordingly, we heard the learned counsel for the appellants to see whether there is any merit in this appeal. Upon so hearing him, we are satisfied that this appeal is entirely meritless and should not even have been filed by the appellants in the first place.

10. There is no dispute that the respondent's father was an Executive Engineer in the Public Construction (Road and Building) Department of the State of Jharkhand. On 11.12.2001, the respondent's father and mother died in a road accident. The respondent was only 20 years old at the time of this tragedy. At least these facts are undisputable and have not been disputed.

11. Records show that the respondent had been pursuing the matter of death-cum-retiral benefits concerning the demise of his father. Though we have not been shown the letters requiring production of documents and details, assuming that such letters were sent, we can hardly fault the respondent.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=bzPoyUlszYLCUcCpirIpqAirfPUsgcmenbrrL%2B8VvAmdTLUt1flyf3nz1eJq%2BBsi&caseno=LPA/37/2025&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010292122024&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.