HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 407 of 2025 Court No. - 1 HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J. HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J. C.M. Application No.1 of 2025 1. Heard Shri Saksham Agarwal, learned counsel for the applicant/ appellant and Shri Anil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. There is a delay of 34 days in filing this appeal which has been satisfactorily explained, accordingly, we condone it. 3. This is an appeal wherein the appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 01.07.2025 passed in Writ A No.3096 of 2002 dismissing the writ petition. 4. The writ petition was filed by the appellant seeking the following reliefs :- "i) issue a writ, order or direction or writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to issue order of posting as Assistant Administrative Officer in pursuance of order dated 22nd January 1990 from the date his juniors were promoted and pay him salary admissible to that post regularly alongwith arrears. ii) issue a writ, order or direction or writ in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner on the post of Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Saksham Agarwal, Anupriya Agarwal, Rakesh Kumar Agarwal Counsel for Respondent(s) : Anil Kumar Srivastava Lalit Kumar Jain .....Appellant(s) United India Insurance Company Ltd. Thru. Chairman-Cum-Managing Director And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) Administrative Officer from the date his juniors and similarly situated persons were promoted as Administrative Officer. iii) issue a writ, order or direction or writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders dated 7th January 1994, 22nd March 1994 and 14th June 1994, passed by respondent nos.3, 2 & 1 respectively, as contained in Annexure Nos.2, 3 & 4 respectively." 5. Apparently, the writ petition was highly delayed. Infact the relief clause was cleverly drafted. The punishment orders were challenged in relief no.3, whereas that should have been the main relief. Nevertheless, the punishment order and the orders passed in appeal and revision were all passed in the year 1994 and the writ petition was filed in the year 2002, seeking quashing of the said orders. Apart from it, the claim of the appellant/ petitioner was that he had been found suitable for promotion to the next higher post of Assistant Administrative Officer, as per the order dated 22.01.1990, but was never posted on the said promotional post. This relief also appears to have been highly belated. The cause of action, if any, arose in the year 1990, but the writ petition was filed in the year 2002. Apart from it we see no relation between relief nos. 1 and 2 of the writ petition with relief no.3, as, if the posting was not done in 1990 then, that was a cause of action occurring prior to 1994. Of course it is the case of the respondents herein that after the punishment order was passed on 07.01.1994 reducing the appellant/ petitioner in basic pay by eleven steps in the time scale applicable to him, then he was not entitled to be promoted in terms of ranking list published on 22.01.2019, as that was merely a tentative list with a clear stipulation that if any irregularity was found thereafter then the consequences would follow accordingly. 6. The learned Single Judge has considered the delay in filing the writ petition qua the relief nos.1 and 2 regarding posting based on SPLAD No. 407 of 2025 2 the order dated 22.01.2019 and has found the same to be inordinate and unsatisfactory. So far as the challenge to the punishment order dated 07.01.1994 and the appellate and the revisional orders are concerned, the learned Single Judge has recorded a finding that embezzlement was admitted by the appellant/ petitioner. Thus, we are of the opinion that even this relief was highly belated, as already stated herein-above. Nevertheless, the learned Single Judge has not found any reason to interfere with the punishment orders. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents, as no plausible explanation has been offered for the delay in filing the writ petition before the writ court, the delay being inordinate, even otherwise for the reasons given by the learned Single Judge with which, we concur, it is a hardly a matter for interference in an intra court appeal at this stage. Regarding the contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant, that there was a recurring cause of action, it is absolutely misconceived. If the petitioner/ appellant had a claim for being posted in pursuance to the order date 22.01.2019, of which he had knowledge, then, he should have approached the court, if aggrieved, promptly. Likewise the punishment orders having been passed and there is no question of any recurring cause of action in such matters. 8. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. October 30, 2025 Arnima SPLAD No. 407 of 2025 3 (Rajeev Bharti,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Digitally signed by :- ARNIMA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench