Dismissed¶¶23

Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC27 May 2026WRIA/5162/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Restoration application; sufficient cause; condonation of 12 years' delay; dismissal for want of prosecution; U.P. Public Service Tribunal; claim petition; Constable U.P. Police; punishment order dated 28.11.2007; deduction of 30 days' salary; writ petition dismissed; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; WRIT - A No. 5162 of 2026; diligence of litigant.

What did the court decide?

A delay of 12 years is an extremely long period; a litigant is expected to be diligent in prosecuting his case before the Tribunal, and it is not possible to believe that the petitioner did not ascertain the fate of his case for 12 years. ¶¶21

Shiv Bahadur Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 5162 of 2026

Shiv Bahadur Singh

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And 3 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Jyotsana Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

¶9

Court No. - 5

¶10

HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J.

¶11

1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶12

2. Heard Shri Kunwar Samarth Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner and learned Standing Counsel representing the Staterespondents.

¶13

3. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity of order dated 14.02.2025 passed by the U.P. Public Service Tribunal, Indira Bhawan, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal" ), whereby the application for restoration preferred by the petitioner has been rejected, as the Tribunal did not find any sufficient and justifiable grounds for restoration of the claim petition after a lapse of 12 years.

¶14

4. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is a member of the Uttar Pradesh Police Force and is working on the post of Constable. He had preferred a claim petition before the Tribunal challenging the punishment order dated 28.11.2007, where 30 days' salary of the petitioner was deducted, and subsequently, the appeal preferred by the petitioner was also rejected. The claim petition was listed on 30.01.2012 and was dismissed for want of prosecution as no one appeared to press the said case on behalf of petitioner. It is only after a lapse of 12 years that an application for restoration was moved on 26.11.2024. In the said application, which has been brought on record by means of a supplementary affidavit, the relevant pleadings pertaining to the cause for delay have been stated in paragraphs 4 and 5, which are reproduced herein below :

¶15

"4. That the applicant is serving his duty continuously and he got promoted to Sub-Inspector post on 07.03.2024 because of clean service during this period but when the applicant tried to contact his advocate to

¶16

WRIA No. 5162 of 2026

¶17

¶18

know about the petition then he got the knowledge that the petition is dismissed on default of appearance in the case.

¶19

5. That it is pertinent to mention here that the applicant was unaware of the stage of the petition and he delegated all the authorities to his advocate but the advocate unintentionally forget to appear before the Tribunal and this petition got dismissed and when the petitioner got the knowledge of such dismissal so much time was passed already. So it is most important to restore this petition in the interest of justice otherwise irreparable losses will be caused to the applicant."

¶20

5. It is noticed that in the said application, it has only been mentioned that the petitioner was not aware of the dismissal of the application and, therefore, has sought condonation of the delay of 12 years. The question which falls for consideration before this Court is whether the order of the Tribunal is illegal and arbitrary and whether the petitioner has demonstrated sufficient cause for the delay in filing the restoration application.

¶21

6. We find that the petitioner has only given the reason that he did not have knowledge about the dismissal of his claim petition. In this regard, needless to say, 12 years is not a short period but an extremely long period of time, and the petitioner, as a litigant, should have been diligent in prosecuting his case before the Tribunal. It is not possible to believe that for 12 years he did not ascertain the fate of his case pending before the Tribunal and tried to find out about it only after a long lapse of time.

¶22

7. We find that no sufficient reason has been indicated that the petitioner which may amount to "sufficient cause," and in the absence of any sufficient cause, the Tribunal did not commit any error in rejecting the application for restoration. This Court also does not find that any cogent reason has been stated by the petitioner seeking condonation of delay of 12 years.

¶23

8. For the aforesaid reasons, no ground for interference is made out in the petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed .

¶24

(Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Alok Mathur,J.)

¶25

May 27, 2026 Shubhankar

¶26

Digitally signed by :- SHUBHANKAR THAKUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 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

Similar cases

Union of India, Thru. Secy. Govt. of India Ministry of Defence New Delhi and 3 Others vs No. 13993168M Ex Acp Nb Sub Kailash Chandra

Union of India,Thru. Its Secy. Ministry of Defense New Delhi and 3 Others vs Jc 768894A Ex Sub (Hony Capt) Krishnarjuna Rao

Mujeeb Rahman vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Transport Deptt. Lko and 4 Others

U.O.I. Thru. Its Secy. Ministry of Defence, New Delhi and 3 Others vs No Jc 387060F Sub Murare Tiwari

Mamta Devi @ Mamta Srivastava vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. (Urban Development ) Lko. and 2 Others

Ex Ck(S)-I No 152599-T Santosh Kumar Tiwari vs U.O.I. Thru. the Secy. Ministry of Defence, New Delhi and 3 Others