Dismissed¶¶19

State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Public Works Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 4 Others v. Krishna Kumar

Allahabad HC30 Jan 2025SPLAD/34/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Special appeal dismissed; regularization of compassionate appointment; order dated 30.08.2010 appointing daily-wage PWD employees (District Pratapgarh) to regular work charged establishment held NOT to be regularization; Single Judge's direction to regularize from initial appointment date 12.06.2002 upheld; delay of 149 days condoned; Chapter VIII Rule 5 Allahabad High Court Rules; Writ-A No.5365 of 2024; State of U.P. v. Krishna Kumar; neutral citation 2025:AHC-LKO:6340-DB.

What did the court decide?

Delay in filing the special appeal (149 days) was condoned; the special appeal on merits was dismissed, leaving the Single Judge's direction to regularize the respondent's compassionate-basis appointment from 12.06.2002 intact. ¶¶19

State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Public Works Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 4 Others Vs Krishna Kumar — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent's services had already been regularized by the order dated 30.08.2010, so that there was no occasion for the Single Judge to direct regularization of his services with effect from 2002.

¶¶7

Court's answer

By the order dated 30.08.2010 the respondent was given appointment in the regular work charged establishment (on the Selection Committee's recommendation dated 20.08.2010) and his services have not been regularized; accordingly the State's contention that his services already stood regularized finds no force.

¶¶17

Ratio / Principle

The submission of the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel was found to be without force, and no other point was pressed before the Court.

¶¶18

Key takeaways

Just and plausible reasons having been disclosed in the supporting affidavit, and in absence of any objection with a bona fide explanation offered, the 149-day delay in filing the special appeal was condoned.ratio¶¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Division Bench (Attau Rahman Masoodi and Subhash Vidyarthi, JJ.), Special Appeal (Defective) No. 34 of 2025 (Neutral Citation 2025:AHC-LKO:6340-DB), decided 30.1.2025: The State's intra-Court Appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules challenged the Single Judge's judgment and order dated 31.07.2024 in Writ-A No.5365 of 2024 (Krishna Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others), which had directed regularization of the respondent's compassionate-basis appointment in the Public Works Department from his initial appointment date of 12.06.2002. The State argued the respondent's services were already regularized by an order dated 30.08.2010. The Court held that the office order dated 30.08.2010, passed on a Selection Committee's recommendation dated 20.08.2010, merely gave the respondent and other daily-wage employees of PWD, District Pratapgarh, appointment in the regular work charged establishment and did not amount to regularization of services. Finding no force in the State's submission and no other point pressed, the special appeal was dismissed; the 149-day delay in filing was condoned on the strength of just and plausible reasons disclosed in the supporting affidavit.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:6340-DB

¶2

Court No. - 1

¶3

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 34 of 2025

¶4

Appellant :- State Of U.P. Thru. The Prin. Secy. Public Works Deptt. Govt. Of U.P. Lko. And 4 Others Respondent :- Krishna Kumar Counsel for Appellant :- C.S.C. Counsel for Respondent :- S.P. Singh Somvanshi

¶5

Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

C.M. Application No.1 of 2025 (Application for condonation of delay in filing the Special Appeal):

¶7

Heard the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State, Sri S.P. Singh Somvanshi, the learned counsel for the opposite party and perused the records.

¶8

The instant intra-Court Appeal filed by the State is delayed by 149 days as on the date of filing i.e. 27.01.2024.

¶9

The appeal is accompanied with an application seeking condonation of delay supported by an affidavit. In the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application, we find that just and plausible reasons have been disclosed by the applicants-appellants seeking condonation of delay.

¶10

In absence of any objection and the explanation offered being bona fide, the application for condonation of delay is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

¶11

Let the Special Appeal be assigned a regular number.

¶12

Order on the Special Appeal:

¶13

By means of the instant intra-Court Appeal filed under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, the appellants have challenged the validity of a judgment and order dated 31.07.2024, passed by an Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court in Writ-A No.5365 of 2024: Krishna Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others, whereby the writ court has allowed the petition filed by the respondent-Krishna Kumar and the appellants were directed to regularize the respondent's appointment made on compassionate basis with effect from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 12.06.2002.

¶14

The learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has submitted that although the respondent was initially appointed in the year 2002 his services already stood regularized by means of an order dated 30.08.2010 and there was no occasion for directing regularization of his services with effect from 2002 in the writ petition filed by him in the year 2024.

¶15

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the respondent's services have not been regularized till date. The order dated 30.08.1010 referred by the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel merely gives appointment to the respondent in regular work charged establishment.

¶16

A copy of office order dated 30.08.2020 annexed as Annexure No.6 to the writ petition is available on record and it provides that numerous employees named in the order, including the petitioner, who were working on daily wage basis in Public Works Department in District Pratapgarh, be

¶17

appointed in regular work charged establishment on the basis of recommendation dated 20.08.2010 made by a Selection Committee. Thus, it is clear that the by means of an order dated 30.08.2010 the respondent was given appointment in regular work charged establishment and his services have not been regularized.

¶18

Accordingly, we find no force in the submission made by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel. No other point was pressed before this court.

¶19

The special appeal is bereft of any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed .

¶20

[Subhash Vidyarthi, J.] [A.R. Masoodi, J.]

¶21

Order Date :- 30.1.2025 Ram.

¶22

Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Public Works Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 4 Others v. Krishna Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Public Works Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 4 Others v. Krishna Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Adil Husain Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Minority Welfare and Waqf Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Suez India Pvt. Ltd., through its Authorized Signatory, Rajesh Chandra Mathpal vs Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board, through its Chairman and 6 Others

Ashish Kumar Singh vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Personnel and Tranning New Delhi and 4 Others

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Basic Education U.P. Lko. and 2 Others Vs Pankaj Kumar Singh and 3 Others

Sankalp Samajik Sashaktikaran Paryavaran Sanrakshan Sanstha Thru. Its President Prakash Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. Lko. and 3 Others

Raghvendra Singh PNO-112510611 Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 2 Others