Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 15206 of 2020 Petitioner :- Narendra Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 22.9.2020 passed by respondent no.2 by which the appeal of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground of laches.
At the very outset, learned Standing Counsel has raised preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of laches.
This much is reflected from the record that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Safai Karmi in the department of Panchayat Raj, Shahjahanpur vide order dated 18.1.2009. On a complaint against the petitioner a show cause notice was given to the petitioner on 07.1.2011 to which the petitioner has submitted detailed reply refuting the allegations. Eventually the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Shahjahanpur has passed an order dated 21.4.2011 withholding one year increment permanently. Aggrieved with the same, the petitioner preferred appeal dated 16.09.2020 before the Deputy Director (Panchayat) Bareilly Division, Bareilly, which was rejected vide order impugned dated 22.09.2020 on the ground of delay.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in similar circumstances the Court has intervened in the matter in Writ-A No.7994 of 2019 (Ram Baran v. State of U.P. & Ors.) vide order dated 20.5.2019 and similar indulgence may also be accorded in this writ petition also. For ready reference, the order dated 20.05.2019 is quoted as under:-
"Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Petitioner a class-IV employee (Safai Karmi), by the instant writ petition is assailing the order dated 29 August 2018 passed by the second respondent, Deputy Director, Panchayat, Bareilly Mandal, Bareilly dismissing the appeal of the petitioner under the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 on the ground of latches.
Having due regard to the fact that the petitioner is an illiterate class-IV employee, it would be in the interest of justice that his appeal be considered and decided on merit.
Accordingly, the impugned order dated 29 August 2018 passed by second respondent is set aside and quashed.
The second respondent, Deputy Director, Panchayat, Bareilly Mandal, Bareilly is directed to consider and decide the appeal of the petition a fresh on merit by passing a reasoned and speaking order, preferably, within two months from the date of filing of certified copy of this order along with the copy of the writ petition.
With the aforementioned observations/directions, the writ petition stands disposed of."
So far as factual and legal aspect is concerned, the same has not been disputed by learned Standing Counsel.
The Court has proceeded to examine the record in question as well as respectfully considered the aforesaid judgment. The Court find substance in the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and find that the case of the petitioner is similar to that of Ram Baran (Supra).
Consequently, the order impugned is set aside. The second respondent-Deputy Director, Panchayat, Bareilly Division, Bareilly is directed to consider and decide the appeal of the petitioner afresh on merit by passing a reasoned and speaking order, preferably, within two months from the date of filing of copy of this order along with the copy of the writ petition.
With the aforementioned observations/directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 13.1.2021 Harshita