Court No. - 29
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 190 of 2019 Appellant :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Respondent :- Shailesh Kumar Pal And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Anand Kumar Ray Counsel for Respondent :- Ramesh Chandra Shukla
Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J. Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
The appeal is beyond time by 119 days.
The delay is sufficiently explained in the affidavit.
Accordingly, we are satisfied with the explanation and condone the delay in filing the appeal.
Delay condonation application no. nil of 2019 is allowed.
Heard Sri A.K. Ray, learned Standing Counsel for the appellants and Sri R.C. Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent no.1.
This intra-court appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 25.09.2018, by which the writ petition of respondent no.1 has been disposed of with certain directions. The directions are to the following effect: (i) that the respondent no.1 shall submit a representation to the appellant no.2- Director, Animal Husbandry, U.P., Lucknow who shall take steps to correct the seniority list; (ii) the Director, Animal Husbandry, U.P., Lucknow is also directed to ensure that all promotional and other consequential benefits are provided to the respondent no.1 from the date a person junior to him in the seniority list was granted such benefit.
There is no dispute that pursuant to the above order, the Director, Animal Husbandry by order dated 06.02.2019 has decided the seniority of respondent no.1. The appellants are now aggrieved by the second direction whereby promotional and other consequential benefits have to be provided to the respondent no.1 from the date, a person junior to him in seniority list was granted such benefit.
Learned Standing Counsel submits, there is a dispute of inter se seniority between respondent nos. 1 and 2. The respondent no. 2 was granted promotion in the year 2003 w.e.f. 01.02.1997 whereas the respondent no.1 had been granted promotion w.e.f. 2008 and both of them are serving in different divisions and therefore their seniority has to be counted separately and the respondent no.1 is not entitled to any promotional or other consequential benefits from the date respondent no.2 was granted such benefits.
We find this is a matter which is yet to be considered by the Director, Animal Husbandry for which he may pass a fresh order after hearing the parties concerned in light of the order of the writ court dated 25.09.2018 most expeditiously, if possible, within the next six weeks.
The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
Order Date :- 26.2.2019 Abhilash