State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Horticulture and Food Processing U.P. Lko. and Others Vs Ram Milan Yadav

1 -

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:38438-DB

Chief Justice's Court

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 278 of 2024 Appellant :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Horticulture And Food Processing U.P. Lko. And Others Respondent :- Ram Milan Yadav Counsel for Appellant :- Sri Mohit Jauhari, Standing Counsel Counsel for Respondent :- Sri Bhanu Pratap Singh, Advocate

¶5

Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

This appeal is directed against the order dated 19.10.2022 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ A No. 11198 of 2017 whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent has been allowed and the order dated 15.03.2017 has been set aside. Further, the appellants have been directed to pay minimum of the pay-scale to the respondent. The office has reported the appeal as barred by 543 days. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay along with an affidavit has been filed.

¶7

It is inter-alia indicated therein that the order impugned was passed on 19.10.2022 and on 18.11.2022 opinion was given by the learned Chief Standing counsel for filing an appeal. The Law Department gave permission to file appeal on 24.08.2023 whereafter the State Government suggested amendments in the memo of appeal on two occasions and ultimately the appeal was filed on 12.04.2024.

¶8

Submissions have been made that delay is liable to be condoned and the appeal deserves to be heard on merits as the Hon'ble Supreme Court has stressed that the matter should be heard on merit instead of dismissing it on technical grounds of delay and laches.

¶9

A perusal of the affidavit clearly reveals that the officers of the State, despite being aware of the limitation for filing an appeal, has acted in a most laid back manner whereby it is taken them nine months in taking a decision for filing of the appeal and thereafter another eight months in getting the same drafted and filed before the Court. The said action and attitude of the officers of the State can not be countenanced. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr., (2012) 3 SCC 563 dealing with similar circumstances as laid down as under:-

¶10

2 -

¶11

"27. It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us.

¶12

28. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody, including the Government.

¶13

29. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bona fide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few.?"

¶14

In that view of the matter, no case for condoning the delay is made out. The application seeking condonation of delay is liable to be dismissed. Even the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge is essentially based on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Others vs Jagjit Singh and Others; (2017) 1 SCC 148 wherein it has been laid down that those working are entitled to seek wages at minimum of the pay-scale.

¶15

Learned Single Judge has passed the order in reference to the said order and in the determination which has been made by the respondent it has been clearly indicated that the respondent has been working as a vehicle driver. As such even on merits, there is no substance in the appeal.

¶16

In light of the above discussion, the appeal is dismissed . Order Date :- 21.05.2024 Asheesh/-

¶17

(Jaspreet Singh, J.) (Arun Bhansali, CJ.)

¶18

Digitally signed by :- ASHEESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Horticulture and Food Processing U.P. Lko. and Others v. Ram Milan Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Horticulture and Food Processing U.P. Lko. and Others v. Ram Milan Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vinay Kumar Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. U.P. Govt. Civil Sectt. Lko. and Others

Ram Kumar Shukla vs C/M Rashtriya Inter College, Ranapur , Barabanki Thru. Its Manager Sunil Kumar and Others

Akshay Kumar Singh and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Urban Development Deptt. U.P. Govt. Sectt. Lko. and Others

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Horticulture and Food Processing U.P. Lko. and Others vs Ram Milan Yadav

Kushal Pal Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Sugar Industries and Cane Development U.P. Lko. and Others

Kushal Pal Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Sugar Industries and Cane Development U.P. Lko. and Others