Court No. - 40
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 794 of 2018 Appellant :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Respondent :- Hariendra Pandey Counsel for Appellant :- Pankaj Rai Counsel for Respondent :- Awadh Behari Singh
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J. Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
Heard Sri Pankaj Rai, learned counsel for the appellants.
There is a huge delay in the filing of this appeal. Apart from this, we do not find the reasons stated in the affidavit accompanying the appeal to be a plausible explanation, keeping in view the fact that there are a large number of State Law Officers available who could have filed the appeal within time.
The delay therefore has not been sufficiently explained and the reasons given do not justify the filing of the appeal at such a belated stage. We are therefore not prepared to condone the delay.
Apart from this, the contention of the learned counsel for the State is that since the appellant had retired in the year 2011 therefore he cannot be extended the benefit of extension of age in retirement as claimed by him.
Learned counsel for the respondent petitioner has invited the attention of the Court to other such orders passed in similar cases where the retirement had taken place prior in point of time particularly in Special Appeal Defective No. 474 of 2018 State of U.P. Vs. Prahalad Singh which special appeal was filed by the State and was dismissed.
Learned counsel submits that the conclusion drawn by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any legal infirmity more so in the present case as well, inasmuch as, when the writ petition had been entertained the following order had been passed on 19.12.2011:-
"Learned Standing counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 4. He prays for and is accorded six weeks time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within next two weeks.
List thereafter.
It is made clear that in the event of success of writ petition, monetary benefit as admissible would be extended to the petitioner."
In this view of the matter, we do not find any substance in the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent petitioner was not entitled to any such benefit. Thus on both grounds namely of delay as well as for what has been observed above we reject the appeal.
Order Date :- 27.10.2018 M. ARIF