Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 135210 (ALL)

RAM ADHAR YADAV v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. MAHILA EVAM BAL VIKAS VIBHAG U.P. LKO. AND ANOTHER

SPLAD/160/2025 · 2025-04-21

Attau Rahman Masoodi, Rajeev Singh

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:22277-DB Court No. - 1 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 160 of 2025 Appellant :- Ram Adhar Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Mahila Evam Bal Vikas Vibhag U.P. Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Shrawan Kumar Verma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J. Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This intra-court appeal filed under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 is delayed by 1222 days. 3. The appeal is accompanied with an application for condonation of delay supported with an affidavit. 4. By means of the impugned judgment passed by the writ court, the writ petition filed by the petitioner appears to have been allowed in part. The writ court has directed the opposite parties to pay the petitioner the service benefits on a higher post on notional basis subject to his eligibility and suitability for promotion. The order directing for consideration of the appellant’s candidature has already been complied with and he has also been promoted on the higher post on 16.02.2022. 5. It is true that non-compliance of the order passed by the writ court led to the institution of contempt proceedings but during pendency of the same, the impugned judgment was complied with. Thereafter in order to refresh the cause, the appellant appears to have filed a review application after compliance of the judgment which was rejected by order dated 17.03.2025. Page no.1 of 3 The order passed on the review application reads as under-: “1. Heard learned counsel for the review applicant. 2. This review application has been filed challenging the order dated 21.11.2019 passed in Writ Petition No.8409 (S/ S) of 2011 whereby allowing the writ petition, a direction has been passed that no arrears of salary payment on higher post shall be payable though the same shall be calculated on a notional basis. 3. Learned counsel for the review applicant submits that once the impugned order dated 12.08.2011 has been quashed as being unreasonable, the arrears of salary payment on the higher post was required to be made automatically and therefore the same is required to be reviewed only with regard to said aspect. 4. In the considered opinion of this Court, the ground raised by learned counsel for review applicant does not indicate any error apparent on the face of record. The submissions made are in fact on merits of the judgment which has been rendered and may be a ground for challenging the judgment and order in appeal. 5. In view thereof, the review application is dismissed. 6. The applicant may avail himself of the appellate jurisdiction of this Court. " 6. As is evident from the sequence of the events, the appellant had instituted the review application to gain advantage of time notwithstanding the fact that the impugned order did not suffer from any illegality apparent on the face of record and nothing convincing was argued before us too on this aspect. 7. Therefore, the rejection of review would not lend any support to the appellant for condonaton of delay and the period of limitation would reckon from the date the order was initially passed by the writ court i.e. 21.02.2019. That being the position, the appeal suffers from heavy laches. The explanation offered in the Page no.2 of 3 affidavit on the pretext of the pendency of contempt proceedings or a review application, in our humble consideration, is not a plausible justification for instituting the appeal at such a belated stage. 8. This apart, once the judgment passed by the writ court has been complied with and the advantage thereof is availed of by the appellant, it clearly implies that instituting the present appeal is a calculated move for a higher relief for which the period of limitation has run out. 9. The application for condonation of delay is rejected and consequently the appeal also stands dismissed. (Rajeev Singh,J.) (Attau Rahman Masoodi,J.) Order Date :- 21.4.2025 Shahnaz Page no.3 of 3 Digitally signed by :- SHAHNAZ BANO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench