Ashoke Kumar Sahu Vs. State of Bihar and ors.

- motor vehicles act, 1988 [c.a. no. 59/1988]section 173(1) proviso; [d. biswas, amitava roy & i.a.ansari, jj] appeal without statutory deposit but within limitation/or extended period of limitation maintainability - held, if the provision of a statute speaks of entertainment of appeal, it denotes that the appeal cannot be admitted to consideration unless other requirements are complied with. the provision of sub-section (1) of section 173 permits filing of an appeal against an award within 90 days with a rider in the first proviso that such appeal filed cannot be entertained unless the statutory deposit is made. the period of limitation is applicable only to the filing of the appeal and not to the deposit to be made. it, therefore, appears that an appeal filed under section 173 cannot be entertained i.e. cannot be admitted for consideration unless the statutory deposit is made and for this purpose the court has the discretion either to grant time to make the deposit or not. no formal order condoning the delay is necessary, an order of adjournment would suffice. the provisions of limitation embodied in the substantive provision of the sub-section (1) of section 173 of the act does not extend to the provision relating to the deposit of statutory amount as embodies in the first proviso. therefore an appeal filed within the period of limitation or within the extended period of limitation, cannot be admitted for hearing on merit unless the statutory deposit is made either with the memo of appeal or on such date as may be permitted by the court. no specific order condoning any delay for the purpose of deposit under first proviso to sub-section (1) of section 173 is necessary. [new india assurance co. ltd. v md. makubur rahman, 1993 (2) glr 430 and new india assurance co. ltd. v smt rita devi, 1997(2) glt 406, approved. new india assurance co. ltd. v birendra mohan de, 1995 (2) gau lt 218 (db) and union of india v smt gita banik, 1996 (2) glt 246, are not good law]. .....did give recognition to the appointment of the petitioner as a teacher in the subject 'economies'.5. from a perusal of the order passed earlier by the ranchi bench referred to above it will be evident that the high court had gone very deep into the factual aspects and had recorded the service history of the petitioner. from a very perusal of the said order it appears that the petitioner had been appointed as an assistant teacher for the aforementioned subject in the jonha high school which was treated to be a government project high school with effect from 1.1.1982 and the petitioner even thereafter continued in the said school.6. mr. v. shivnath, learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits that from a plain reading of not only the pleadings but also from the observations of the high court, it may be apparent that the petitioner has been working in the school right from the date of appointment continuously and therefore, while recognizing his service as a regularly appointed teacher, his salary should have been released right from the beginning and not from the date of issuance of the order as stipulated in annexure 7/1, i.e., the order dated 15.5.1997. to that extent and prima facie the submissions made by mr. v. shivnath, learned counsel for the petitioners appears to be absolutely correct and as has been agreed both by mr. v. shivnath, learned counsel for the petitioner as also by mrs. rashmi kumari learned junior counsel to the g.p. ii the matter can once again be remanded to the concerned director, (newly added respondent) who is holding equivalent post in the state of jharkhand to look into the matter afresh and pass an order strictly in terms of the order passed by the then ranchi bench of the patna high court referred to above and after taking into consideration the observations made herein as also the observations made by the high court indicated above. the newly added respondent shall now look into the matter and pass an order in accordance.....