Allahabad High Court High Court

Ram Harakh Yadav vs State Of U.P. Through Secretary, … on 25 January, 2010

Allahabad High Court
Ram Harakh Yadav vs State Of U.P. Through Secretary, … on 25 January, 2010
   Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 17535 of 2010
                               IN
               Special Appeal (D) No. 93 of 2010
                             *****

Hon’ble C.K. Prasad,CJ
Hon’ble Arun Tandon,J

This application has been filed for condoning the delay
in filing the appeal.

According to Stamp Reporter, the appeal is barred by
limitation by 66 days.

Various reasons, which prevented the 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.

Accordingly, delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
Application stands allowed.



Date: 25.01.2009
RK/                                          (C.K. Prasad, CJ)


                                             (Arun Tandon,J)
                   Special Appeal (D) No. 93 of 2010

Ram Harakh Yadav vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others
*****

Hon’ble C.K. Prasad,CJ
Hon’ble Arun Tandon,J

Writ petitioner-appellant, aggrieved by order dated 12.10.2009

passed by a learned Single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4189

of 2008, has preferred this appeal under Rule 5 Chapter VIII of the

High Court Rules.

Writ petitioner-appellant (hereinafter referred to as ‘petitioner’)

claimed regularization of his service under the provisions of U.P.

Collection Amins Service Rules, 1974. His prayer was rejected on the

ground that there is no vacancy within 35% of the prescribed quota,

required to be filled by seasonal collection Amins. Petitioner

challenged the aforesaid order, by means of writ petition which has

given rise to the impugned order.

It is the stand of the petitioner that vacancies still exist, within

the quota of 35% against which the petitioner’s service can be

regularized and further, persons junior to him have also been so

regularized without considering his case.

Having heard Mr. Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate,

appearing on behalf of the appellant, Mr. Ghanshyam Dwivedi, learned

Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents and having

taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, we

deem it expedient that the District Magistrate, Kushi Nagar may

examine the claim of the petitioner and in case, it is found that junior
Seasonal Collection Amins to the petitioner have been regularized as

Collection Amins, with 35 % quota without considering the case of

petitioner he shall pass appropriate order bearing in mind the aforesaid

Rules and instruction issued thereon within three months form the date

of production of a certified copy of this order.

The appeal stands disposed of with the observation aforesaid.



Date: 25.01.2009
RK/                                                (C.K. Prasad, CJ)


                                                   (Arun Tandon,J)