Delay disentitles a party to discretionary relief, and the requirement of a succession certificate for the release of C.M.P.F. dues is justified.

JUDGMENT :

I.A.No.10952 of 2019

This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 22 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal.

2. Heard.

3. No counter affidavit has been filed opposing the prayer for condoning the delay.

4. Having regard to the averments made in this application, we are of the view that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the period of limitation.

5. Accordingly, I.A.No.10952 of 2019 is allowed and delay of 22 days in preferring the appeal is condoned.

L.P.A. No.501 of 2019

6. The instant intra-court appeal preferred under Clause-10 of Letters Patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 03.05.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.4851 of 2014, whereby and whereunder, the direction sought for by the writ petitioner for release of C.M.P.F. dues, gratuity amount and family pension, have been decided to be paid in favour of the writ petitioner only on submission of succession certificate, being aggrieved with the same, the writ petitioner has preferred the instant appeal.

7. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition, required to be enumerated, are as hereunder:-

It is the case of the writ petitioner that his father, who was an employee under the respondents-CCL had died in harness on 17.09.1991. The mother of the writ petitioner has also died on 08.06.1992. The writ petitioner has been given compassionate appointment on 18.02.1993. The claim of the writ petitioner for release of C.M.P.F. dues, gratuity amount and family pension has become due way back in the year 1991-92. But the writ petitioner has invoked to this Court by filing the writ petition being W.P.(S) No.4851 of 2014 only on 12.09.2014.

The respondents-CCL has appeared before the learned Single Judge and taken the plea that there is no record available in the office of the respondent Company showing any pending claim against the services of the deceased-father of the writ petitioner. Further, ground has been taken that more than 25 years have lapsed since the death of father of the writ petitioner, as such, the writ petition is required to be dismissed on the ground of inordinate delay.

The respondent-CMPF has also appeared and filed counter affidavit taking the ground inter-alia therein that the refund claim of the deceased member has already been settled for Rs.5,58,417/-under para 64(iii) of CMPF Scheme, 1948, as no nomination subsist, on perusal of Schedule “C” forwarded by the colliery management, i.e., the list of surviving family member, contains the name two minor son Dasan and Taman as on the date of death on 17.09.1991 of the member is payable to the holder of Succession Certificate, the share of minor sons and daughters who were alive on the date of death of late Jagdish, CMPF A/c No.D/387100.

It has further been stated that the amount of PF will be released in two shares of Rs.279209/-and Rs.279208/-as and when the claim will be received from the management along with the succession certificate(s) obtained from the Competent Court in the matter of Estate of legal heir(s) of both two sons late Dasan and late Taman both S/o of late Jagdish, respectively as both sons are dead after the death of the member, i.e., late Jagdish.

The learned Single Judge after considering the stand inter-alia taken by the respondent CCL as also respondent CMPF has passed the order by the considering the factual aspect to be disputed and as such, the writ petitioner has been given liberty to produce the succession certificate with a direction upon the CMPF authorities that if any succession certificate is produced, the CMPF authorities are directed to act and release the amount.

So far as the other dues regarding the pension is concerned, since the claim has been raised after 23 years and as such, the same cannot be considered. Even the documents are not available with the respondents. So far as t