Dismissed¶15

Adesh Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC19 Dec 2022SPLA/804/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, Special Appeal No. 804 of 2022 (decided 19.12.2022): laches and inordinate delay (31 years) in challenging termination order dated 15.5.1991 of a CT Grade Teacher; res judicata effect of earlier writ petition (No. 16952 of 1991) and Special Appeal No. 829 of 2010; temporary appointment without approval; review application withdrawn; writ Court's dismissal upheld; special appeal dismissed with cost.

What did the court decide?

The writ Court rightly dismissed the writ petition, as the challenge to the termination order dated 15.5.1991 was highly belated and barred by laches. ¶14

Adesh Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 804 of 2022

¶3

Appellant :- Adesh Kumar Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Amrendra Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.

¶5

The present intra-court appeal is directed against the order of learned Single Judge dated 9.11.2022 in a writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the termination of his service by order dated 15.5.1991. The Writ Court has dismissed the petition on ground of laches and inordinate delay in challenging the termination order. The order passed by the Writ Court is as follows:

¶6

"1. Challenge raised in the writ petition is to the termination order dated 15.05.1991. Thirty one years have passed.

¶7

Undisputedly, the petitioner had earlier approached this Court after termination order came into existence. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that due to wrong legal advise, no challenge was made to the termination order.

¶8

Whatever may be predicament faced by the petitioner, it cannot be denied, the claim being raised is wholly stale.

¶9

Present writ petition is barred by laches. It is accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost."

¶10

Indisputably, the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 16952 of 1991 praying for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in his working as CT Grade Teacher and to continue paying salary to him. While dismissing the said writ petition by order dated 23.4.2008, the writ Court recorded a finding that the appointment of the petitioner was temporary in nature and there was no approval to his appointment and consequently, no provision of law or rule had been violated in bringing the same to end. The relevant paragraph from the said order is extracted below:

¶11

"Even on merits the petitioner has not been able to establish the legitimacy of his appointment. His appointment was not made in a legitimate manner in accordance with the provisions of the act. It was never blessed with an approval and, therefore, it cannot be said that his appointment, which was of a temporary in nature was brought to an end either in violation of any

¶12

provision of law or rule or in any illegal manner."

¶13

The appellant challenged the order of learned Single Judge dated 23.4.2008 by filing Special Appeal No. 829 of 2010 which was dismissed by order dated 20.2.2017. The said order has attained finality. It seems that thereafter the petitioner filed a review application seeking review of the order passed in special appeal but the same was later on withdrawn by the petitioner and thereafter, the petitioner once again approached the writ Court and challenged the termination order which had been dismissed by learned Single Judge by the order reproduced above.

¶14

As it is not disputed that the termination order was well within the knowledge of the petitioner but in his previous writ petition he chose not to challenge the same but only prayed for a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents from interfering in his functioning as CT Grade Teacher and in that context a finding was returned that his appointment was without any approval and temporary in nature. The said finding operates as resjudicata and the petitioner cannot be permitted to challenge the termination order by means of a fresh petition on any fresh ground. Moreover, the writ Court has rightly observed that the challenge is highly belated.

¶15

The special appeal is, accordingly, dismissed with cost.

¶16

Order Date :- 19.12.2022 A. V. Singh

¶17

(Jayant Banerji, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)

¶18

Digitally signed by :- AJAY VIKRAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Adesh Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Adesh Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shahina Parveen Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Zaheer Beg and Another Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Daulat Ali Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Vijay Kumar Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Indura Finlease Private Limited Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dhruva Choudhary Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others