STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME LKO. AND 4 OTHERS v. NAVNEET NIGHAM
SPLAD/531/2024 · 2025-09-11
Manjive Shukla, Rajan Roy
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 162707 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 162707 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 531 of 2024 Court No. - 1 HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.
HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.
Order on C. M. Application No. 1 of 2024
1. Heard.
2. By means of this appeal the appellant(s)- State has challenged the
judgment and order dated 27.10.2023 passed in Writ A No.20904 of 2019, by which the claim of the private respondent to compassionate appointment has been accepted and the petition has been allowed.
3. This appeal has been filed on 26.09.2024. When we peruse the affidavit filed in support of application for condonation of delay we find that after receipt of impugned judgment dated 27.10.2023 legal opinion was sought by the appellants vide letter dated 23.01.2024 from the Chief Standing Counsel of the High Court at Lucknow. The legal opinion was rendered by the Chief Standing Counsel on 30.01.2024. Thereafter, the matter was placed before the competent authority vide letter dated 12.09.2024 of the Special Secretary Additional law Advisor, Government of U.P. asking the Chief Standing Counsel to file the appeal. There is no explanation whatsoever for the period, 01.02.2024 till 11.09.2024, that is about eight Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : C.S.C. Counsel for Respondent(s) : Vijay Kumar State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 4 Others .....Appellant(s) Navneet Nigham .....Respondent(s)
months, as to what happened during this period. Thereafter, vide letter dated 17.09.2024 the Deputy Secretary, Government of U.P. wrote to the Upper Police Mahanideshak, Lucknow to file special appeal. The appeal came to be filed only on 26.09.2024.
4. The explanation in the affidavit filed in support of delay condonation application is of the period subsequent to 12.09.2024, but there is no explanation for the intervening period that is 01.02.2024 to 11.09.2024. Thus, the delay of 302 days is inordinate and unexplained. We do not accept the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay. The delay being inordinate and not having being satisfactorily explained, the application for condonation of delay is rejected.
5. Consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed. September 11, 2025 Arnima SPLAD No. 531 of 2024 2 (Manjive Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Digitally signed by :- ARNIMA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench