Allowed

ram niwas yadav v. State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Allahabad HC4 Apr 2018SPLA/298/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a special appeal, the High Court set aside the dismissal of a writ petition seeking salary arrears for a period of suspension. The court held that since the appellant was acquitted only in 2012, making the claim then could not be considered barred by latches. The order was quashed and the respondent direction given to decide on the claim.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order setting aside the writ petition on the ground of latches was set aside; the respondent shall decide on the communication dated 23.1.2017 and pay any due amount.

ram niwas yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors. — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 39

¶2

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 298 of 2018

¶3

Appellant :- Ram Niwas Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors Counsel for Appellant :- J.K.S. Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Dilip Gupta,J. Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.

¶5

This Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 6 March 2018 by which the writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed on account of latches.

¶6

The appellant who was working as a constable in the civil police was suspended by order dated 4 September 2000 but he was reinstated on 20 October 2000 with a condition that orders regarding payment of salary for the period he was suspended shall be passed afterwards.

¶7

It is stated that the criminal trial resulted the acquittal of the petitioner by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barabanki on 11 July 2012 and, thereafter, the appellant made a representation to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Allahabad, who by a communication dated 23 January 2017 has asked the Senior Superintendent of Police, Varanasi to take a decision in the matter.

¶8

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant could have made a request for payment of salary for the period that he was suspended only after he was acquitted in the criminal case that had been instituted against him and, therefore, it cannot be said that there was any latches on the part of the appellant.

¶9

Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents has, however, supported the impugned order and stated that the writ petition was barred by latches.

¶10

We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶11

It is no doubt true that the petitioner had been reinstated on 20 October 2000. It is also true that he was acquitted in the criminal case in 2012.

¶12

Such being the position, the claim made by the petitioner after

¶13

acquitted in the criminal case cannot be said to be appeared by latches.

¶14

The learned Judge, in our opinion, failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter, the judgment under appeal, therefore, cannot be sustained. It is, accordingly, set aside.

¶15

The Senior Superintendent of Police, Varanasi shall take a decision on the communication dated 23 January 2017 sent by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Allahabad at an early date and, if any amount is found to be due, the same shall be paid to the appellant at an early date.

¶16

The Special Appeal is, accordingly, allowed to the extent indicated above.

¶17

Order Date :- 4.4.2018 Akram

¶18

(Dilip Gupta,J.)

¶19

(Neeraj Tiwari,J.)

ram niwas yadav v. State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

ram niwas yadav v. State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C/M Shri Radha Krishna Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya Vs State of U.P. Thru Secry. and 16 Others

Vimla Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ashwani Kumar Chaubey Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Dharampal Vs State of U.P. and 5 Ors.

Jaivindra and 86 Others Vs State of U.P. and 61 Others

Prem Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 others