Court No. - 4 Civil Misc. (Delay Condonation) Application No. 125387 of 2002 IN
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 387 of 2002
Appellant :- Jai Prakash Tiwari
Respondent :- The Secretary Of Institutional Finance U.P. Lko. And Others
Counsel for Appellant :- P.N.Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
This appeal is reported to have been filed beyond time by 1 year 221 days.
Cause shown in support of condonation of delay in filing the appeal is sufficient.
The delay condonation application is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
Office is directed to allot regular number to this appeal.
Order Date :- 26.11.2019 Shalini
/////////////////// Court No. - 4
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 387 of 2002
Appellant :- Jai Prakash Tiwari
Respondent :- The Secretary Of Institutional Finance U.P. Lko. And Others
Counsel for Appellant :- P.N.Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
Case called out in the revised list.
None appears on behalf of the appellant.
Seen the office report dated 25.11.2019. Service on the appellant is deemed to be sufficient in view of the provisions of Chapter VIII, Rule 12, Explanation (II) of the Allahabad High Court Rules.
This special appeal is directed against the judgement and order dated 21.11.2000 passed in Writ Petition No.34931 of 1997 (Jai Prakash Tiwari vs. The Secretary of Institutional Finance U.P. and others) which was filed by the petitioner, who was working as Registration Clerk on daily wage basis, before this Court challenging his termination on the post of Registration Clerk. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by the order impugned in this writ petition with the following direction :-
"In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that all the writ petitions deserve to be disposed of finally with the direction to the concerned authority to consider the representation of the petitioners for being considered on merit afresh (ignoring any earlier decision on the matter) taking into account the provision of Rule 1998 as well as the direction given by the Supreme Court in the case of Avdhesh Kumar (supra). For the above purpose any decision rejecting the representation of the petitioners in the above cases shall be deemed to have been set aside by the Court. The petitioners are directed to file fresh representation and photo copy of the writ petitions with annexures before the concerned competent authority within six weeks from today which shall be considered and decided by the competent authorities within three weeks thereafter by a reasoned order. The petitioners are, however, not entitled for the relief claimed but the relief which this Court mould, as indicated herein above."
We have perused the impugned judgement and order dated 21.11.2000. We do not find that the same suffers from any illegality or infirmity.
Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to the costs.
Order Date :- 26.11.2019 Shalini