Dismissed¶15

Ram Ji Lal Kushawaha v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Govt. Lko. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC22 Jan 2026WRIA/430/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delay and laches; unexplained inordinate delay of 27 years in filing writ petition; Limitation Act, 1963 inapplicable but laches enforced; Uttar Pradesh Public Services Tribunal; Claim Petition No.333 of 1990; judgment and order dated 16.12.1997; denial of consequential service benefits; reinstatement order dated 30.04.1998; retirement on superannuation in 2012; illness explanation rejected; dismissal of writ petition; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; Rajan Roy; Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary; Writ - A No. 430 of 2026.

What did the court decide?

While limitation, as prescribed under the Limitation Act, 1963, does not apply to such a petition, delay and laches nevertheless have to be explained, especially when the delay is so inordinate as in this case. ¶12

Ram Ji Lal Kushawaha vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Govt. Lko. and 5 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 430 of 2026

Ram Ji Lal Kushawaha

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue Govt. Lko. And 5 Others

¶7

ov. o. n ers	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Hari Om Gupta, Sachin Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.

¶8

Court No. - 1

¶9

HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J. HON'BLE ABDHESH KUMAR CHAUDHARY, J.

¶10

1. Heard.

¶11

2. By means of this petition the petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 16.12.1997 passed by the Uttar Pradesh Public Services Tribunal in Claim Petition No.333 of 1990; Ramjee Lal Kushwaha vs. The State of U.P. & Anr .

¶12

3. The petition has been filed on 16.01.2026. While limitation, as prescribed under the Limitation Act, 1963, does not apply but, delay and laches have to be explained, especially when the delay is so inordinate as in this case. The petition has been filed almost 27 years after the impugned judgment. In fact, in compliance of the aforesaid judgment dated 16.12.1997 the petitioner was reinstated vide order dated 30.04.1998. The petitioner continued in service and retired on attaining the age of superannuation in 2012. The petitioner has now filed this petition challenging the judgment dated 16.12.1997 as he appears to be aggrieved by the last line of the operative portion of the said judgment by which he was held dis-entitled to any consequential service benefits flowing from the said judgment. There is no plausible explanation for such inordinate delay of 27 years and the explanation offered regarding illness, etc. is not acceptable as the petitioner not only joined the services but after completing the same, retired in 2012.

¶13

WRIA No. 430 of 2026

¶14

¶15

4. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.

¶16

(Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.)

¶17

January 22, 2026

¶18

Arnima

¶19

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

Ram Ji Lal Kushawaha v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Govt. Lko. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Ji Lal Kushawaha v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Govt. Lko. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Loha Brick Field Old Name Haji Jaleel Ahmad Ent Bhatta, Thru. Proprietor Sri Nijamuddin vs Member Secretary, U.P. Pollution Control Board, Lucknow and Another

Vikram Sharma and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Nagar Vikas and 3 Others

Ram Bilas Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Smt.Garima Gupta and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Urban Development Lko. and 3 Others

Smt.Rajendra Kumari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Nagar Vikas Lko. and 4 Others

Manoj Kumar Menghani @ Manoj Menghani vs Real Estate Regulatory Authority U.P. Lko. Thru. Secy. and 2 Others