Court No. - 34
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 232 of 2006 Appellant :- Raj Narain Shukla Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Appellant :- V.K. Jaiswal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
Hon'ble Virendra Kumar Srivastava, J.
1. Order dated 22.12.2010 having been recalled by order of date passed on restoration application, this appeal is restored to its original number.
2. As requested by learned counsel for parties, we proceed to hear and decide this appeal finally at this stage.
3. Heard Sri V. K. Jaiswal, learned counsel for appellant and learned Standing Counsel for State-respondent.
4. This intra Court appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1952") has arisen from judgment dated 28.10.2005 passed by learned Single Judge whereby order of termination of petitioner has been set aside, while granting relief of reinstatement only backwages have been denied.
5. Learned counsel for appellant could not dispute that entitlement of backwages of an employee is not automatic and it has to be considered on facts and circumstances of each case. However, learned counsel for appellant could not show that learned Single Judge was legally in error in denying backwages.
6. We do not find any fault in the judgment of learned Single Judge warranting interference by this Court. Appeal lacks merit.
7. Dismissed accordingly. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Order Date : .30.05.2019 Manish Himwan
Court No. - 34
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 232 of 2006 Appellant :- Raj Narain Shukla Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Appellant :- V.K. Jaiswal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.
Hon'ble Virendra Kumar Srivastava, J.
Ref : Civil Misc. Restoration Application No.23115 of 2011
1. This is an application seeking recall of order dated 22.12.2010 whereby Delay Condonation Application No.79915 of 2006, was rejected for want of prosecution and consequently, appeal was dismissed being barred by limitation.
2. Cause shown for absence of learned counsel for applicant-appellant is sufficient. Orders dated 22.12.2010 are recalled.
3. This application, accordingly, stands allowed.
Ref : Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No.79915 of 2006
1. Order dated 22.12.2010, having been recalled by order of date passed on restoration application, this application is restored to its original number. This application has been filed under Section 5 of Indian Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing appeal.
2. Heard.
3. Cause shown is sufficient.
4. Delay is hereby condoned.
5. This application, accordingly, stands allowed.
Order Date : 30.05.2019 Manish Himwan