Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 430 (ALL)

Bhagwan Singh v. State of U. P.

2024-02-08

ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI

body2024
ORDER : Order on Delay Condonation Application 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Reasons for delay in filing the special appeal have been satisfactorily explained. Delay Condonation Application is consequently allowed. Office is directed to treat the appeal as having been filed within time. Regular Number would be allotted to the appeal. Order on Special Appeal 1. Appellant filed the writ petition before the learned Single Judge with the prayer to direct the respondent authorities to restore his services as Seasonal Collection Peon in Tehsil Kiraoli, District-Agra and pay his salary month to month within some period to be fixed by this Court. In the writ petition, the petitioner stated that he was placed at serial no. 187 and the authorities by ignoring his seniority have proceeded to engage others who were much junior to him, overlooking his claim. It was alleged that on account of some motivated complaint, the authorities were not allowing the petitioner to work. 2. Learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition after taking note of the contents of the complaint made against him. Learned Single Judge has observed that the allegations made in the complaint since are not disputed, as such the ouster of the name of the petitioner from the list of Seasonal Collection Peon seems to be justified. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the allegations made in the complaint cannot be treated to be an adjudication on the charges levelled against him and without adverting to the veracity of the allegations made in the complaint, the petitioner cannot be held disentitled to continue as Seasonal Collection Peon. 4. We find substance in the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant that in the absence of any adjudication, the allegations made in the complaint cannot be treated as correct. There is nothing on record to show that any of the authorities have examined the legality of the appointment offered to the appellant nor the appellant's claim regarding denial of work has so far been attended to by the competent authority. Learned Single Judge could not have drawn conclusion from the allegations contained in the complaint even if the petitioner had not elaborately explained the allegations in the writ. Learned Single Judge could not have drawn conclusion from the allegations contained in the complaint even if the petitioner had not elaborately explained the allegations in the writ. Further, the findings returned by the learned Single Judge holding appellant-petitioner to be minor at the time of appointment or having criminal antecedents could not be returned on the basis of a complaint made by some private person. Neither any counter affidavit was invited in the writ nor the averments made in the complaint were verified. Consequently and for the reasons narrated above, the judgment and order passed by learned Single Judge on 17.08.2023 cannot be approved. The order of learned Single Judge dated 17.08.2023 is set aside. 5. The writ petition and the Special Appeal both are disposed of with a direction upon the respondent no. 3 to accord consideration to petitioner's claim with regard to denial of engagement as Seasonal Collection Peon overlooking his seniority, by passing a reasoned order within a period of two months.