Dismissed¶8

Pushpa Devi Annd 3 Others v. General Manager, Aryavart Bank Head Office Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC20 Mar 2025SPLAD/118/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay refused; 775 days delay; SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. 118 of 2025; Aryavart Bank; compassionate appointment claim rejected 21.8.2019; writ petition dismissed as misconceived 23.12.2022; ex-gratia payment received; scheme amendment 02.01.2024; financial hardship; unavoidable circumstances; appeal dismissed as barred by limitation; Arun Bhansali, Chief Justice; Jaspreet Singh, J.; order date 20.3.2025; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC-LKO:16035-DB; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench.

What did the court decide?

The grounds of financial hardship and so called unavoidable circumstances advanced for condoning the 775-day delay cannot be countenanced under any circumstances. ¶6

Pushpa Devi Annd 3 Others Vs General Manager, Aryavart Bank Head Office Lko. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:16035-DB

¶2

Chief Justice's Court

¶3

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 118 of 2025

¶4

Appellant :- Pushpa Devi and 3 others Respondent :- General Manager, Aryavart Bank Head Office Lko. and 2 others

¶5

Counsel for Appellant :- Rama Kant Dixit Counsel for Respondent :- Lalit Shukla

¶6

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

¶7

This appeal is directed against order dated 23.12.2022 passed by learned Single Judge whereby the petition filed by the petitioners/appellants seeking grant of compassionate appointment has been dismissed as misconceived.

¶8

Writ petition was filed in the year 2022 seeking to question the validity of order dated 21.8.2019 whereby the claim made for grant of compassionate appointment was rejected.

¶9

Learned Single Judge after noticing the fact that the petition was filed after more than two years after rejection of the application and after receiving the ex-gratia payment payable under the scheme, found the petition as misconceived and untenable and consequently, dismissed the same.

¶10

The appeal is barred by 775 days. An application seeking condonation of delay has been filed inter-alia on the ground that on account of financial hardship and unavoidable circumstances, the appeal could not be filed in time.

¶11

Learned counsel for the appellants while arguing on the application seeking condonation of delay, attempted to make submissions that the scheme of the bank has been amended on

¶12

02.01.2024, based on which now the present appeal has been

¶13

filed.

¶14

The plea sought to be raised seeking condonation of delay on the purported grounds of financial hardship and so called unavoidable circumstances seeking condonation of delay 775 days cannot be countenanced under any circumstances even the plea pertaining to the amendment also pertains to January, 2024, post which also no explanation has been indicated.

¶15

In view thereof, we do not find any good reason to condone the delay of 775 days in filing the appeal.

¶16

The application is rejected. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed as barred by limitation.

¶17

Order Date :- 20.3.2025

¶18

¶19

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

¶20

Digitally signed by :- NISITH DEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Pushpa Devi Annd 3 Others v. General Manager, Aryavart Bank Head Office Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pushpa Devi Annd 3 Others v. General Manager, Aryavart Bank Head Office Lko. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Confidential and Vigilance Lko. and Another Vs Deepak Yadav

Dipendra Raj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj Deptt. and 6 Others

Chin Guddu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 5 Others

Randheer Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Irrigation Deptt. Lko. and 5 Others

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others Vs Deependra Prakash Tiwari

Rahul Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Cooperative U.P. Govt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others