Allowed

Jaiveer Singh and Anr. v. Secretary,State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Allahabad HC14 May 2018SPLA/425/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Special appeal filed against an order dismissing a writ petition due to appellant's counsel absence. This Court held the matter was not infructuous without which recall was impossible, set aside the impugned order, allowed the appeal, and restored the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the judgment and order dated 13 April 2018; restore the writ petition to its original number.

Jaiveer Singh and Anr. Vs Secretary,State of U.P… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 39

¶2

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 425 of 2018

¶3

Appellant :- Jaiveer Singh And Anr Respondent :- Secretary,State Of U.P. And 3 Ors Counsel for Appellant :- Vinod Sinha,Mahesh Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Manu Saxena

¶4

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

¶5

This Special Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 13 April 2018 of a learned Judge of this Court by which Writ-A No.5940 of 2002 that had been filed for not only quashing the order dated 23 October 2001 passed by Secretary, State of U.P., Lucknow but also for a direction upon the respondents not to interfere with the working of the petitionersappellants as fitter and cashier-cum-clerk in Nagar Palika Parishad, Debia, Bulandshahar and to pay regular salary, has been dismissed. The judgment is reproduced below:-

¶6

"1. Called in revise. None appeared on behalf of petitioners.

¶7

By means of the present writ petition, petitioners have sought the following reliefs:

¶8

"i). issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 23.10.2001 passed by respondent no.1 (Annexure No.9 to the writ petition).

¶9

ii). issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioners to work on their respective posts of fitter and cashier-cum-clerk in Nagar Palika Parishad Debia, Bulandshahr and pay salary month to month, as and when it fall due."

¶10

However, I have gone through the pleadings, grounds as also reliefs sought and find that petitioners are not able to make out a case so as to justify interference of this Court by granting reliefs, as prayed for.

¶11

Moreover, it appears that either the cause of action no more survives or that petitioners have lost interest in this matter or it has otherwise become infructuous and, probably for this reason, none is interested to have decided this matter on merits and that is why, counsel for petitioners is absent.

¶12

Dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

¶13

Sri Jagdish Prasad, Advocate holding brief of Sri Nitin Kumar Agrawal and Sri Rishabh Srivastava, Advocate holding brief of Sri Manu Saxena, are present for respondents."

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioners-appellants has submitted

¶15

that the counsel for the petitioners-appellants could not appear before the learned Judge. It is also submitted that cause of action still survives but as the matter has been decided on merits, a recall application cannot be filed.

¶16

In the absence of counsel for the petitioners-appellants, the learned Judge has, after reading the pleadings, found that the petitioners-appellants has not been able to make out a case for the Court to interfere. The learned Judge has also observed that the matter may have been rendered infructuous as counsel for the petitioners-appellants has not appeared. The learned counsel for the petitioners-appellants has stated that they could not appear before the Court.

¶17

In the facts and circumstances of the case and when the matter has not been rendered infructuous, we consider it appropriate to set aside the judgment and order dated 13 April 2018 and restore the writ petition to its original number.

¶18

The Special Appeal is, accordingly, allowed.

¶19

Order Date :- 14.5.2018 Akram

¶20

(Dilip Gupta,J.)

¶21

(Neeraj Tiwari,J.)

Jaiveer Singh and Anr. v. Secretary,State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaiveer Singh and Anr. v. Secretary,State of U.P. and 3 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

Hemant Kumar Parashar and Another Vs the North-Eastern and East Central Railway Employee and Ors.

Jitesh Jha Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Shankar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sudhir Singh Chauhan and 12 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Jitendra Kumar Vs Union of India and 2 Others

Surendra Kumar Vs Jaya Bharti and 3 Others