Chief Justice's Court Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 99 of 2010 Petitioner :- State Of U.P. Through Principal Secy. Irrigation & Others Respondent :- Angad Singh And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Ghanshyam Dwivedi (Sc) Respondent Counsel :- Siddhartha Srivastava Hon'ble Chandramauli Kumar Prasad,Chief Justice Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J.
Order on Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No.20491
of 2010
This application has been filed for condoning the delay in filing
the appeal.
According to the Stamp Reporter appeal is barred by limitation by
109 days.
Various reasons, which prevented the applicant/appellant from
filing the appeal within time have been enumerated in the affidavit
filed in support of the delay condonation application.
We are of the opinion that the same constitute sufficient cause for
condoning the delay in filing the appeal.
Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
Application stands allowed.
Order on Special Appeal
Respondents – appellants, aggrieved by an order dated 01.09.2009
passed by learned Single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition
No.64962 of 2008, have preferred this appeal under Rule 5
Chapter VIII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952.
Writ petitioners – respondents, herein, filed the writ application for
quashing the advertisement made for recruitment of Seench Pal,
inter alia, contending that they are entitled to be regularized in
service on the ground that persons junior to him having been
regularized, they are entitled for the same benefit.
Aforesaid submission found favour with the learned Single Judge
and he directed the writ petitioners – respondents be engaged in
regular establishment.
Mr. Ghanshyam Dwivedi, Standing Counsel, appearing on behalf
of the respondents – appellants submits that writ petitioners –
respondents initial engagement was not in accordance with law
and therefore, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the
case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Smt. Uma
Devi and others, reported in JT 2006 (4) SC 420, the direction
given is bad.
However, it is not in dispute that writ petitioners – respondents
challenged their termination before the Labour Court, which made
an award holding their termination to be bad and directed for their
continuance.
In view of aforesaid, when persons junior to them have been
regularized, we do not find any justification to interfere with the
order of the learned Single Judge, who has granted relief to the
writ petitioners – respondents.
We are of the opinion that the consideration of the matter by
learned Single Judge does not suffer from any error, calling for
interference in this appeal.
We do not find any merit in the appeal, and it is dismissed
accordingly.
Order Date :- 27.1.2010
VMA
(C.K. Prasad, C.J.)
(Arun Tandon, J.)