2026:JHHC:22240-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 497 of 2025 With I.A. No. 10204 of 2025 The Project Officer, Block-IV/Kooridih Colliery of M/s. BCCL under Govindpur Area, PO-Sonardih, PS-Katras, District-Dhanbad, through Sri Suman Kumar Saran, S/o Late Brij Prilas Saran, Project Officer, ABG Colliery, R/o D-6, Sinidih Officers Colony, PO & PS-Sudamdih, District-Dhanbad ... … Appellant Versus Smt. Alo Devi, W/o Late Dilip Kumar, R/o Kauludih, East Katras, PO- Katrasgarh, PS & District-Dhanbad ... … Respondent ----- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Appellant : Mr. A.K. Mehta, Advocate Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, Advocate Mr. Shubham Malviya, Advocate For the Respondent : ----- Order No. 03 Dated: 28.07.2026 1. Heard Mr. A.K. Mehta for the appellant. 2. I.A. No. 10204 of 2025 seeks condonation of delay of 193 days in instituting the accompanying appeal against order dated 17.12.2024 dismissing the appellant’s W.P.(L) No. 1957 of 2024 and directing the appellant to pay gratuity amount of Rs.1,01,198/- to the respondent. 3. In the first place, we are quite surprised that the BCCL should pursue the matter against a widow of a deceased employee when the amount involved is quite meagre. Simply by stating that some principle is involved, the BCCL should consider whether such an appeal needs to be pursued. 4. In any event, on examining the averments in the I.A. seeking condonation of delay, we find that no sufficient cause has been shown. All that is set out is that legal opinions were obtained 2026:JHHC:22240-DB 2 from various sets of advocates, followed by vague statement that annexures were not readily available. There are vague statements about time being required to prepare the memo of appeal as well as the petition for condonation of delay. 5. Based upon such vague and unverifiable statements, no sufficient cause could be said to have been shown. Though we do not wish to enter into the merits of the matter, we note that it was the BCCL’s case that the amount payable to the respondent (widow of the deceased employee) had to be reimbursed by the L.I.C. The amount involved is a little more than Rs 100,000/-. 6. Mr. Mehta submits that under the MoU, clearly, it was the liability of the L.I.C to reimburse this amount. Now merely because there is some dispute between the L.I.C and the BCCL regarding reimbursement of this amount, this appeal has been filed contending that the amount should not be paid to the respondent. The learned Single Judge has rightly rejected such an argument. 7. In any event, since no sufficient cause has been shown, we dismiss I.A. No. 10204 of 2025 seeking condonation of delay. 8. Therefore, the accompanying appeal will not survive and is accordingly disposed of. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) July 28, 2026 Manish/Ritesh Uploaded on 29.07.2026