HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 59 of 2016 Court No. - 1 HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J. HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J. (C. M. Application No. 16069 of 2016) 1. This is an application for condonation of delay in filing special appeal supported with affidavit. 2. Heard learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and learned counsel for the respondent. 3. The special appeal has been preferred by the appellant- State challenging the judgment and order dated 29.05.2015 passed in Writ Petition No. 3172(S/S) of 2015. 4. By means of the writ petition claim for counting services of respondents-petitioners as work charge employees for the purpose of grant of increment, selection grade, promotional pay-scale, pension benefits and post retiral dues, as admissible to a regular employee, was allowed in view of a Division Bench judgment in Special Appeal No. 445 of 2011; Bhuvneshwar Rai Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. decided on 18.09.2024. Respondents-petitioners also claimed grant of ACP in view of the said judgment. 5. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the appellants did not dispute the legal position as settled by the aforesaid judgment before the writ Court. Accordingly, the writ Court quashed the order impugned Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : C.S.C. Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.M.Tripathi State Of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy.Irrigation Deptt.Lko.And Ors. .....Appellant(s) Mansha Ram Tewari And Ors. .....Respondent(s) before it. 6. The special appeal has been filed with delay of almost seven months ten days, on 11.02.2016. We are now in 2025. Nevertheless, when we proceed to consider the explanation offered for the delay it is stated by the appellants that the certified copy of the impugned judgment dated 29.05.2015 was served upon the appellant no. 3 on 29.07.2015, however, there is no explanation as to why the State Authority did not come to know about this judgment when there is a battery of State lawyers available and obviously the judgment was passed in open Court in the presence of the State Counsel, who, in fact, did not dispute the applicability of a Division Bench judgment as referred herein above. There is no explanation for the delay of two months in this regard. It is then said that the Officer became busy in election duty till September, 2015 and only then legal opinion was sought in the matter which was given on 08.11.2015 i.e. with a delay of another one and half months. It is not acceptable that all officers were involved in election duty and nobody could approach the learned Chief Standing Counsel Office to get legal opinion and get the appeal prepared. This is nothing but a lame excuse put forth by the appellants taking advantage of elections which may have intervened. The matter was ultimately referred to the Government for filing special appeal and necessary approval was granted in this regard by it on 16.12.2015 i.e. yet again delay of more than a month. After receipt of the aforesaid approval from the Government the documents etc. were collected and sent to the learned Chief Standing Counsel by means of letter dated 29.12.2015 which was received in the Office of learned Chief Standing Counsel on 04.01.2015, then, certain other papers were provided and information sought was also provided in the 4th week of January, 2016. Ultimately, the appeal was prepared on 29.01.2016 which was filed on 11.02.2016. 7. These are nothing but lame excuses. The affidavit does not disclose any promptness on the part of the appellants to challenge the judgment of the writ Court. The delay is not only inordinate, the explanation is unsatisfactory. The limitation prescribed for filing such appeals under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 is 30 days vide Chapter IX Rule 10 of the Rules, 1952 read with Article 117 of the SPLAD No. 59 of 2016 2 Schedule appended to the Limitation Act, 1963. After taking into consideration the recent decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Shivamma (Dead) by LRs. Vs. Karnataka Housing Board and Ors. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine 1969 we are not persuaded to condone the delay in filing the special appeal. The application for condonation of delay is rejected. 8. Consequently, the special appeal is also dismissed. November 18, 2025 R.K.P. SPLAD No. 59 of 2016 3 (Rajeev Bharti,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAJ KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench