Disposed

Shakti Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC7 Jul 2020WRIA/4089/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a Safai Karmi, assailed an order rejecting his appeal on the ground of laches. The Court condoned the delay relying on a principle applied in Ram Baran v. State of U.P., where an appeal of an illiterate class-IV employee was allowed despite delay, and set aside the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; Respondent directed to decide petition afresh on merit within two months.

Shakti Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4089 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Shakti Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel.

¶6

The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 22.3.2013 passed by second respondent by which the appeal of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground of laches.

¶7

At the very outset, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel has raised preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of laches.

¶8

Confronted with this, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon para 19 of the writ petition by which delay has been explained.

¶9

The Court has proceeded to examine the record in question and find substance in the contention raised in para 19 of the writ petition for condoning the delay.

¶10

This much is reflected from the record that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Safai Karmi in the department of Panchayat Raj, Shahjahanpur vide order dated 18.2.2009. On a complaint against the petitioner a show cause notice was given to the petitioner on 11.4.2011 to which the petitioner has submitted detailed reply refuting the allegations. Eventually the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Shahjahanpur has passed an order dated 21.4.2011 withholding one year increment permanently. Aggrieved with the same, the petitioner preferred appeal dated 5.9.2011 before the second respondent, which was rejected vide order impugned on the ground of delay.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in similar circumstances the Court has intervened in the matter in Writ-A No.7994 of 2019 (Ram Baran v. State of U.P. & Ors.) vide order dated 20.5.2019 and similar indulgence may also be accorded in this writ petition also. For ready reference, the order dated 20.05.2019 is quoted as under:-

¶12

"Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶13

Petitioner a class-IV employee (Safai Karmi), by the instant writ petition is assailing the order dated 29 August 2018 passed by the second respondent, Deputy Director, Panchayat, Bareilly Mandal, Bareilly dismissing the appeal of the petitioner under the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 on the ground of latches.

¶14

Having due regard to the fact that the petitioner is an illiterate class-IV employee, it would be in the interest of justice that his appeal be considered and decided on merit.

¶15

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 29 August 2018 passed by second respondent is set aside and quashed.

¶16

The second respondent, Deputy Director, Panchayat, Bareilly Mandal, Bareilly is directed to consider and decide the appeal of the petition a fresh on merit by passing a reasoned and speaking order, preferably, within two months from the date of filing of certified copy of this order along with the copy of the writ petition.

¶17

With the aforementioned observations/directions, the writ petition stands disposed of."

¶18

So far as factual and legal aspect is concerned, the same has not been disputed by learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel.

¶19

The Court has proceeded to examine the record in question as well as respectfully considered the aforesaid judgment. The Court find substance in the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and find that the case of the petitioner is similar to that of Ram Baran (Supra).

¶20

Consequently, the order impugned is set aside. The second respondent-Deputy Director, Panchayat, Bareilly Mandal, Bareilly is directed to consider and decide the appeal of the petitioner afresh on merit by passing a reasoned and speaking order, preferably, within two months from the date of filing of copy of this order along with the copy of the writ petition.

¶21

With the aforementioned observations/directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶22

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the petitioner alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.

¶23

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶24

Order Date :- 7.7.2020 SP/

Shakti Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shakti Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kripa Shankar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Santosh Dhar Dwivedi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rampal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Krishan Dutt Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Amit Kumar Dubey Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ravindra Mehta and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others