Smt. Manti Devi Vs. Central Coalfield Ltd. 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]. .....order and pursuant thereto by a detailed speaking order dated 25.1.2003 the respondent authority rejected the claim of the petitioner.3. the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to and relied upon a letter addressed by her dated 3.3.2003 which is annexed as annexure 3 and along with that letter one internal letter dated 1/3.12.99 has also been annexed issued by staff officer (p), kuju area indicating the fact that she had given consent and was ready to work as sanitation mazdoor.4. the main contention raised by the petitioner is based on the aforesaid letter that once the internal letter records the consent that the petitioner was ready to work as sanitation mazdoor she is entitled to appointment on compassionate ground.5. the aforesaid argument is not sustainable because only giving consent for compassionate appointment petitioner cannot have any accured, legal or vested right to claim it. the fact remains that the rejection of compassionate appointment was on the ground that the application was filed after a lapse of one year and eleven months after the date of death of petitioner's husband and even the rejection order was communicated to her by the respondent authority vide letter dated 10/29.3.2000.6. without going into the controversy, this writ petition even otherwise cannot be entertained in view of the dispute with regard to nominee, since the name of the petitioner does not appear in the list of nominee as indicated by the respondents.7. however, the respondents are directed to clear and pay the retiral dues in accordance with law after verifying the credential of the dependent(s) of the deceased employee within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.8. this writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of but without any order as to cost.