Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2021
  6. /
  7. January

Shri Ram vs State Of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy.Home ...

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|19 January, 2021

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
Order on C.M. Application No.4755 of 2020-Application for Condonation of Delay:
The appeal has been filed with a reported delay of 39 days as on the date of filing of appeal.
Considering the grounds taken in the affidavit filed in support of application for condonation of delay, we feel it appropriate to condone the delay.
Accordingly application for condonation of delay is allowed.
Delay in filing of special appeal is hereby condoned.
Order on Memo of Special Appeal:
Admit.
The respondents are represented by learned Standing Counsel.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents.
Considering the controversy involved in the present appeal, with the consent of parties, we proceed to decide the appeal at this stage.
This intra court appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 4.11.2020, passed in Writ Petition No.19104 (SS) of 2020; Shri Ram Vs. State of U.P. and others, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner/appellant has been dismissed.
As per the given facts of the case, the petitioner/appellant was initially appointed as Constable in Civil Police and promoted as Sub-Inspector on 15.12.1975. The petitioner was further promoted as Inspector in the year 1991-1992. The petitioner was given a selection grade on the post of Inspector and promotional pay scale in the year 2003. The petitioner was due for the next promotion as Deputy Superintendent of Police in the year 2005, however, due to adverse remark in his character roll on 24.05.1997 he was not promoted. Aggrieved with the action of the authorities the petitioner filed Claim Petition No.1051 of 2005 before the State Public Service Tribunal. The said claim petition was allowed vide judgment and order dated 25.09.2013. The opposite parties were required to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion from the date his juniors were so promoted and grant him all consequential service benefits if there is no adverse material obstructing his promotion. This order was not complied. The petitioner thereafter preferred the contempt petition before the learned Tribunal which was registered as Contempt Petition No.38 of 2014. In the contempt proceedings the opposite party no.4 was directed vide order dated 29.01.2018 to grant all consequential service benefits to the appellant-petitioner, however, the opposite parties did not comply the order in true letter and spirit and filed a compliance report before learned Tribunal in the contempt proceedings and considering the compliance report the contempt proceedings were dropped and notices were discharged vide order dated 10.12.2019.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner that in fact no compliance was made by the authorities and only compliance on paper was shown to the learned Tribunal. It is also submitted that the appellant-petitioner is 73 years old and he is being harassed by the authorities concerned unnecessarily.
We have considered the submissions made by parties counsel and gone through the records.
Learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition has noted the relevant facts of the case and has also noted the fact that in the contempt proceedings compliance was shown by the respondents and, as such, the contempt proceedings were dropped and notices were discharged. Learned Single Judge has also observed that in case the said order is not being complied the petitioner may approach the Tribunal itself for compliance of its own order.
We do not find any infirmity or illegality in the view taken by the learned Single Judge. In case the appellant-petitioner is aggrieved by the discharge of notices in the contempt proceedings by learned Single Judge, he has liberty to move appropriate application for recall of order dated 10.12.2019, passed by learned Tribunal. He has also the liberty to approach learned Tribunal itself for compliance of its order, as observed by learned Single Judge.
In view of above, we do not find any good ground to grant indulgence. The special appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 19.1.2021 Ram.
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Shri Ram vs State Of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy.Home ...

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
19 January, 2021
Judges
  • Ritu Raj Awasthi
  • Manish Mathur