Disposed

U.P. Jal Nigam Rural Thru. Managing Director , Lko. and Others v. Sadhna Shukla

Allahabad HC22 May 2024SPLAD/283/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court declined to condone a 209-day delay in filing a special appeal due to a casual administrative explanation. It modified the lower court's interim order directing payment of gratuity, making such payments subject to the final outcome of the pending writ petition.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was disposed of. The order dated 20.09.2023 was modified to make any payment subject to the final outcome of Writ A No. 6643 of 2023.

U.P. Jal Nigam Rural Thru. Managing… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:38599-DB

¶2

Chief Justice's Court

¶3

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 283 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- U.P. Jal Nigam Rural Thru. Managing Director , Lko. And Others Respondent :- Sadhna Shukla Counsel for Appellant :- Samir Om,Madhav Om Counsel for Respondent :- Savita Jain

¶5

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

¶6

Heard Sri Samir Om and Sri Madhav Om, learned counsel for the appellants and Ms. Savita Jain, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶7

This appeal is directed against the order dated 20.09.2023 passed in Writ A No. 6643 of 2023 whereby learned Single Judge by way of an interim measure has directed the appellants to pay the gratuity and leave encashment as determined in Annexure-1 to the writ petition within a period of one week and has further directed that the balance amount be calculated on the basis of wages last drawn by the husband of the respondent and pay the same to the respondent along with interest @ 7% per annum calculated from 30th day after retirement till actual date of appointment (in fact husband of the respondent had not retired but died while in service).

¶8

The appeal is barred by 209 days and an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act has been filed seeking condonation of delay along with an affidavit of the authorized officer. The contents of the affidavit read as under:

¶9

“2. That the aforesaid writ petition was decided by this Hon’ble Court vide its order dated 20.09.2023.

¶10

¶11

3. That on 06.10.2023, Pension section of the department transferred prepared a noting on the file to seek legal opinion from the law department of U.P. Jal Nigam (Rural). Thereafter, Law Department after gathering relevant facts from the Division office, U.P. Jal Nigam (Rural) advised the department to seek legal remedy against the order passed by Learned Single Judge in Writ 6643/2023.

¶12

4. That after perusing the relevant records, it was brought to notice that the direction of payment in order dated 20.9.2023 is related to a dispute which is pending before this Hon’ble Court and a huge amount State exchequer is involved.

¶13

5. That it stated that there was an administrative change in the U.P. Jal Nigam Rural wherein the administrative head i.e. Managing Director was changed and new incumbent joined.

¶14

6. That it is stated after the new incumbent joined, file with relevant records was moved and permission was sought.

¶15

7. That it is stated that the permission was sought from the competent authority to file the present Special Appeal and the present Special Appeal is being filed at the earliest opportunity available to the appellants.

¶16

8. That it is stated that there has been no deliberate delay or negligence on the part of the appellants in filing the accompanying Special Appeal and the reasons for delay are purely administrative and bonafide.

¶17

9. That it is specifically stated that the appellants have not derived any benefits by filing the accompanying Special Appeal belatedly but due to genuine reasons it could not be filed earlier, as such it is expedient in the interest of justice that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to condone the delay in filing the accompanying Special Appeal, or may pass such another further order which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.”

¶18

A perusal of the above would reveal that nothing has been indicated by the deponent as to what led to delay in filing the appeal. Only indication made is that there was administrative change in the Jal Nigam whereby the Managing Director was changed and new incumbent has joined, however, no dates in this regard have been indicated. The indication made also cannot be countenanced as in absence of the Managing Director, the working of the Nigam would not have come to a standstill. The nature of cursory affidavit, which has been filed, clearly depicts that the officers have taken the limitation of filing the appeal very casually

¶19

¶20

and they continue to act in a leisurely manner by not caring for filing the appeal in time/with promptitude and the directions given by the Court are also not complied with, which leads to multiplication of litigation like filing of contempt petition and thereafter filing of the appeal.

¶21

In the present case also, it is informed that only after the notice in the contempt petition was issued, the appeal has been filed. The said attitude of the officers cannot be approved at any cost.

¶22

Coming to the facts of the case, in the first round of litigation, the respondent has filed Writ Petition No. 17904 of 2020, wherein interim order was granted by the learned Single Judge dated 08.12.2020 whereby operation of the orders dated 18.08.2020 & 20.08.2020 were directed to remain stayed. As a consequence of passing of the said order dated 08.12.2020, the appellants issued an office order dated 16.12.2020 interalia suspending the operation of the orders dated 20.08.2020 and 05.09.2020. Admittedly, the order dated 08.12.2020 has not been challenged and the same remains in operation.

¶23

As the appellants did not give effect to the stay of the orders dated 20.08.2020 & 05.09.2020 and continued to act as if the said orders were still in operation, the present petition was filed by the respondent, wherein the learned Single Judge after noticing the fact of stay of the orders and taking note of the judgement in Dr. Shyam Chandra Srivastava vs. State of U.P. : 2022 (40) LCD 534 came to the conclusion that the appellants cannot be permitted to continue to act under the orders, which have been stayed and consequently passed the direction as noticed above.

¶24

When it was put to learned counsel for the appellants as to the effect of the order dated 08.12.2020, it was conceded that effect of

¶25

¶26

the order dated 08.12.2020 is that the orders dated 18.08.2020 & 20.08.2020 do not exist.

¶27

Once this is the stand of the appellants qua the orders based on which the respondent is sought to be deprived of her legitimate dues, passing of the order by the learned Single Judge cannot be faulted. However, we feel that the order, as passed, should have been made subject to the final outcome of the pending petition.

¶28

In view thereof, though from the nature of affidavit, filed and the reasons indicated, we do not find any reason to condone the delay in filing the appeal, looking to the nature of order passed and the fact that the respondent is being deprived of what is due to her, as per the appellants’ own assertion, the appeal filed by the Jal Nigam is disposed of. The order dated 20.09.2023 passed by learned Single Judge is modified only to the extent that any payment made, pursuant to the order impugned to the respondent, would remain subject to the final outcome of Writ A No. 6643 of 2023.

¶29

Order Date :- 22.5.2024 nd/SK

¶30

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

¶31

¶32

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

U.P. Jal Nigam Rural Thru. Managing Director , Lko. and Others v. Sadhna Shukla

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

U.P. Jal Nigam Rural Thru. Managing Director , Lko. and Others v. Sadhna Shukla

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

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

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

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

U.P. Jal Nigam Rural Thru. Managing Director , Lko. and Others Vs Sadhna Shukla

Manju Rani Verma Vs the Prin. Secy. Bal Vikas Evam Pushtahaar Deptt. U.P. Lko. and Others