Allahabad High Court High Court

State Of U.P. Thru Secy. … vs Ram Harsh Maurya ( S/S 2647/2001 ) on 22 January, 2010

Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. Thru Secy. … vs Ram Harsh Maurya ( S/S 2647/2001 ) on 22 January, 2010
            C.M. Application No. 40487 of 2008
                            IN
          Special Appeal (D) No. 271 (S/B) of 2008
                               ****

Hon’ble C.K. Prasad,CJ
Hon’ble Y.K. Sangal,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 11 months 12 days.

Various reasons, which prevented the appellants from

filing the appeal within time, have been enumerated in the

affidavit filed in support of the 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.

(C.K. Prasad,CJ)

(Y.K. Sangal,J)
Date: 22.01.2010.

RK/

C.M. Application No. 40490 of 2008
IN
Special Appeal (D) No. 271 (S/B) of 2008
****

Hon’ble C.K. Prasad,CJ
Hon’ble Y.K. Sangal,J

For orders, see our order of date passed on the memo of

appeal.

(C.K. Prasad,CJ)

(Y.K. Sangal,J)
Date: 22.01.2010.

RK/
Special Appeal (D) No. 271 (S/B) of 2008
The State of U.P. and another vs. Ram Harsh Maurya
****

Hon’ble C.K. Prasad,CJ
Hon’ble Y.K. Sangal,J

List has been revised.

Nobody appears on behalf of the respondent.

Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra, learned Additional Chief

Standing Counsel, appears on behalf of the appellants.

Admit.

As the respondent is already represented, there is no

necessity of issuing notice to him.

While pressing for the interim relief, Mrs. Sangeeta

Chandra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel,

submits that the real issue involved in the writ petition was

as to whether the service rendered by the writ petitioner as

work charge employee shall qualify for pension. She

submits that the service rendered as a work charge employee

is not fit to be counted for pension and in this connection,

reliance has been placed on a Division Bench decision of

this Court in the case of Bansh Gopal vs. State of U.P. and

others reported in 2007 (1) AWC 891.

She points out that the learned Single Judge

proceeded on a wrong assumption that the writ petitioner

was claiming counting his temporary service.

During the pendency of the appeal, operation of the

impugned order shall remain stayed.

(C.K. Prasad,CJ)

(Y.K. Sangal,J)
Date: 22.01.2010.

RK/