Allowed

Bireshwar Das v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC1 Jul 2021WRIA/5190/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the rejection of his departmental appeal on grounds of delay. The court held the authority adopted a hyper-technical approach and the delay was condonable due to the COVID-19 pandemic, resulting in a miscarriage of justice.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 04.01.2021 was set aside. The respondent authority was directed to decide the appeal on merits within three months.

Bireshwar Das Vs State of U.P. and Another — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 6

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5190 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Bireshwar Das Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Praveen Kumar Singh,Gaurav Tripathi

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shyam Mani Shukla

¶5

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Gaurav Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Shyam Mani Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent 2 and learned Standing Counsel through video conferencing mode.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Gaurav Tripathi, submits that the departmental appeal filed by the petitioner has been rejected on the ground of delay. As per the impugned order there was a delay of 71 days in filing of the appeal.

¶8

Sri Shyam Mani Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 could not dispute the aforesaid submissions on the basis of record.

¶9

I see merit in the submission of Sri Gaurav Tripathi, that the authority while passing the impugned order has adopted a hyper technical approach in the matter which has lead to a miscarriage of justice.

¶10

I uphold the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was prevented from filing the appeal within the stipulated time because of Covid-19 pandemic. The Court takes judicial note of the fact that Covid-19 pandemic has dislocated the lives in many ways. A model employer like the Baroda U.P. Bank cannot approach the grievance of its employees in such a hyper technical manner. The endeavour of

¶11

the employer should be to adjudicate the matters on merits and not shut the doors of justice to the employee on technical grounds unless the delay is inordinate and not liable to be condoned.

¶12

In the instant case the Courts finds that the delay is liable to be condoned. In the wake of preceding discussion the impugned order dated 04.01.2021 is arbitrary and illegal. The impugned order dated 04.01.2021 liable to be set aside and is set aside.

¶13

The matter is remitted to respondent No.2 Chairman Baroda U.P. Bank, Gorakhpur.

¶14

A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the respondent No.2 Chairman Baroda U.P. Bank, Gorakhpur to execute the following directions:

¶15

The respondent No.2 Chairman Baroda U.P. Bank, Gorakhpur shall decide the appeal of the petitioner on merits without going into the question of delay within a period of three months from the receipt of copy of this order downloaded from the official website of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the party concerned. 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 and fresh copy of representation and memo of appeal.

¶16

It is clarified that this Court has not gone into the merits of the case which shall be examined by the appellate authority upon independent application of mind and in accordance with law.

¶17

The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.

¶18

Order Date :- 1.7.2021 Nadeem Ahmad

Bireshwar Das v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bireshwar Das v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Harikesh Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kanhaiya Lal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Nageena Prasad Kushwaha Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramdular Verma Vs State of U P and 8 Others

Amar Nath Vs U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. and 3 Others

Deshraj Sharma Vs U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. and 2 Others