Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3772 (ALL)

Pahunchi Lal v. State of U. P.

2016-11-22

DILIP B.BHOSALE, YASHWANT VARMA

body2016
JUDGMENT Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No.357780 of 2016: Heard Mr. A.N. Bhargava, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Ramanand Pandey, learned Standing Counsel, for the respondents. The appellant prays for condoning the twenty six days' delay caused in filing the special appeal. The respondents have not filed any reply opposing the prayer till today. In view thereof and for the reasons stated in the application and in the affidavit filed in support thereof, the delay in filing the special appeal is condoned. The application is disposed of. Order on Special Appeal: This special appeal is directed against the order dated 23.9.2016, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant in 2016 against the order of his dismissal in the year 1991. Learned Single Judge, referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in C. Jacob vs. Director of Geology and Mining and Anr. (2008) 10 SCC 115 , dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches. In the writ petition, the appellant sought a direction to the respondents to decide his statutory appeal. It is not in dispute that in 1991, the appellant was dismissed from service. The appellant claims that he filed a statutory appeal in 1991 itself, challenging his dismissal and that appeal has not been decided till this date. Apart from his submission and averments in the writ petition, counsel for the appellant could not point out, on the basis of the record, that such an appeal was in fact filed. Be that as it may, the fact remains, that the appellant has approached this Court for seeking such a relief in 2016 when, according to the appellant, he attained the age of superannuation in 2002. Counsel for the appellant repeatedly submitted that the appellant, all these years, was making representations. The record however does not carry copy of any representation made prior to 2004. We do not find any justifiable reason for the appellant to approach this Court after more than 25 years. If at all, the appellant's claim was correct, he ought to have approached this Court earlier or atleast before attaining the age of superannuation. In our opinion, such a litigant does not deserve any sympathy or any favourable order in such petitions which suffer from inordinate delay and laches. The special appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.