JUSTICE V.K. JAIN (ORAL)

This revision petition is directed against the order of the State Commission dated 26.2.2016, whereby the said Commission refused to condone the delay of 9 months and 18 days in filing the appeal against the order of the District Forum dated 7.2.2014. This is a matter relating to grant of pension under the Employees Family Pension Scheme 1971 and the grievance of the complainant is that he was entitled to a pension of 1860/- but was pension being paid pension of Rs.1224/- per month.

2.      The application which the petitioner had filed before the State Commission seeking condonation of delay in filing its appeal, to the extent it is sought to explain the said delay, reads as under:-

“The applicants state and submit that the applicants have got a good prima facie case and the balance of convenience is also in favour of the applicants. The applicants submits that the certified copy of the judgement and order dated 7.2.2014 was received by the applicants on 9.7.2014 and after receipt of the same, time was consumed in consultation with the Advisor and Lawyer for taking appropriate advice and taken the permission from Higher authority after deliberate considerations, it was decided by the applicants-appellants to carry the matter in appeal and it was under these circumstances, the appeal was filed after lapse of.....days, which may kindly be condoned, in the interest of justice. The applicants further state and submit that they have all the chances in succeeding in the appeal and therefore also, the delay occurred in filing the appeal is required to be condoned, in the interest of justice.”

3.      A perusal of the aforesaid application would show that it does not even give the date on which the free copy of the order of the District Forum was received by the petitioner nor does it claim when such copy was received from the District Forum. Assuming, however, that the copy received by the petitioner on 9.7.2014 was the first copy received by it, there is hardly any explanation for the delay in filing the appeal before the State Commission. The said appeal came to be filed on 26.5.2015. Thus, there was a time lag of more than 10 months between the receipt of the certified copy of the order and filing of the appeal before the State Commission. There is no chronological explanation for the aforesaid abnormal delay and absolutely vague, unconvincing and opaque averments have been made, alleging that the time was consumed in consultation with the advisor and lawyer for taking appropriate  advice and taking the permission from higher authority. There is no explanation as to with which officer, the file remained lying between 9.7.2014 when the certified copy of the order was received and the date on which the file was sent to the advocate for drafting the appeal. In fact, the application does not even give the date on which the file was sent to the advocate for drafting the appeal nor does it give the time taken by the advocate in drafting the appeal. The obvious inference in these circumstances is that the petitioner does not have a cogent and convincing explanation to offer for the said delay and that is why vague averments, using the words ‘consultation with advisor and lawyer’ were used while seeking the condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

4.      During the course of hearing, I asked the learned counsel for the what was the financial implication for the petitioner in case it complies with the order passed by the District Forum. The learned counsel submits that the said financial implication has not been worked out but the order passed by the District Forum may be taken as a precedent for other such cases. I have perused the order passed by the District Forum. The said order is based upon the facts applicable to the case of the complainant. In any case, in order to allay any possible apprehension in this regard, it is clarified that the said order will not be taken as a binding legal precedent. The revision petition is dismissed with the aforesaid observation.