Dismissed

Pankaj Mudgal v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC20 Feb 2020SPLA/394/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal challenging a Single Bench order that dismissed a writ petition for undue delay. The Court held that an order of termination simpliciter under the 1975 Rules is not appealable, rendering the previous appeal misconceived. Consequently, the writ was barred by laches.

What did the court decide?

Appellant's appeal against the Single Bench's dismissal of the writ petition is dismissed on grounds of maintainability and delay.

Pankaj Mudgal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Chief Justice's Court

¶2

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 394 of 2018

¶3

Appellant :- Pankaj Mudgal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Ashish Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Govind Mathur,Chief Justice Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶5

This appeal is preferred to question the correctness of the order dated 10.04.2018 passed by learned Single Bench in Writ-A No.9674 of 2018. Upon an order aforesaid learned Single Bench dismissed the petition for writ being suffered by a huge delay. The factual matrix necessary to be noticed is that an appointment was accorded to the petitioner on compassionate grounds but was terminated from service under an order dated 20.07.2007 by invoking powers under Uttar Pradesh Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that an appeal was preferred by the appellant and that came to be decided under the order dated 04.06.2014. Hence, the delay as a matter of fact is on part of the respondents.

¶6

We don't find any merits on the arguments advanced.

¶7

The order dated 20.07.2007 is an order of termination simpliciter and such order is not appellable under the Rules of 1975. It is well settled that the remedy of appeal is a creation of statute and if the statute doesn't provide such remedy then there is no question of availing that. In view of it the appeal said to be filed is fundamentally misconceived. Even otherwise on the so called appeal / representation whatever that may be an order was passed on 04.06.2014 but the petition for writ was filed on 27.03.2018. No justifiable explanation is given even to explain the delay for the period interregnum from 04.06.2014 to 27.03.2018. The delay in the case in hand as such is huge and that too without any satisfactory explanation. Learned Single Bench, hence, rightly refused to interfere in the matter on the count of delay and latches on the part of petitioner / appellant. The appeal is, hence, dismissed.

¶8

Order Date :- 20.2.2020 AS Rathor

¶9

(Samit Gopal,J.) (Govind Mathur, C.J.)

Pankaj Mudgal v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj Mudgal v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anand Veer Vs State of U.P. through Shief Secretary (Home) and 5 Others

Savitri Vs State of U.P. through Principal Secretary Civil Supply and 3 Others

Baboo Lal Patel Vs State of U.P. through Principal Secreatry Govt. of U.P.and 6 Others

surendra kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 others

Indrajeet Puri Vs State of U.P. through Secretary Control of Pollution and Another

Mange Ram Chaudhari Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others