This application has been filed for condoning the delay in filing the appeal.
According to the Stamp Reporter, the appeal is barred by limitation by 266 days.
Various reasons, which prevented the applicant from filing the appeal within time, have been enumerated in the affidavit filed in support of the application.
We are satisfied that the same constitute sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeal.
Accordingly, delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
Application stands allowed.
Dt. 11.1.2010 S.S.
(Pankaj Mithal, J.) (C.K. Prasad, C.J.) Chief Justice's Court Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 452 of 2004 Petitioner :- Smt. Vipin Bala Kulshrestha Respondent :- Regional Inspectress Of Girls Schools Agra And Others.
Petitioner Counsel :- Satya Prakash Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Chandramauli Kumar Prasad,Chief Justice Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J.
Writ petitioner-appellant, aggrieved by the order dated 30.7.2003 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21908 of 1987, has preferred this appeal under Rule 5 Chapter VIII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952.
Writ petitioner-appellant filed a writ application inter alia praying for a direction that she be treated to be in continuous service since January 10, 1978 and for payment of the salary for the period 13.7.1985 to 30.3.1986. Aforesaid plea was founded on the ground that Regional Inspectress of Girls School had directed the management committee to appoint her. However, the petitioner had not produced any letter of appointment. It is not in dispute that the appointment letter is required to be issued by the management committee.
Mr. Satya Prakash, appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that as the Regional Inspectress of Girls School had directed for the petitioner's appointment, she shall be entitled for salary for the period 13.7.1985 to 30.3.1986.
We do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Prakash. Fact of the matter is that the petitioner was never appointed by the management committee and no letter of appointment has been produced before us. In the absence thereof, the claim for payment of salary is absolutely misconceived.
We are of the opinion that the consideration of the matter by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any error calling for interference in this appeal.
We do not find any merit in the appeal and it is dismissed accordingly.
Dt. 11.1.2010.
S.S.
(Pankaj Mithal, J.) (C.K. Prasad, C.J.)