HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 200 of 2016 Court No. - 1 HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J. HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J. (C. M. Application No. 53011 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. This is an appeal by the State challenging the judgment and order dated 20.01.2016 passed in Writ Petition No. 1084 (S/S) of 2016. 4. We have perused the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay. The explanation offered is firstly that the judgment impugned which is dated 20.01.2016 was served in the office of the appellants only on 09.02.2016, however, there is no explanation as to why if the State was a party which is represented before the High Court by a battery of lawyers it was not informed earlier by its counsel about disposal of the said writ petition which was done in open Court, as, it is not a reserved judgment. There is no explanation as to whether any information was sent or not but a lame excuse has been put forward that they came to know about the impugned judgment only on 09.06.2016 when they received it from the respondent- petitioner. This explanation is not acceptable. Shockingly, the other explanation is that by order dated Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Standing Counsel Counsel for Respondent(s) : R.C. Tewari State Of U.P. Thru. Thru. Prin.Secy. Irrigation And 5 Others .....Appellant(s) Surendra Kumar Awasthi .....Respondent(s) 31.03.2016 representation of the respondent-petitioner was rejected. We have perused the impugned judgment. It did not give liberty to the appellants herein to consider and then take any decision of rejection or acceptance as regards the claim of the respondent-petitioner rather the claim was allowed in toto with a positive mandamus to extend certain benefits, therefore, apparently, this was an act of contempt by the concerned official. 5. Prior to it, legal opinion of learned Chief Standing Counsel was sought on 11.03.2016. If the learned Chief Standing Counsel was of the opinion that an appeal should be filed against the impugned judgment it is incomprehensible as to why an order was passed on 31.03.2016 rejecting the representation as referred above in stead of filing special appeal. Nevertheless, on 07.04.2016 again with substantial delay a letter was written by the appellant no. 4 to the appellant no. 3 for getting necessary approval from the State Government for filing a special appeal. This hardly demonstrates any promptness on the part of the appellants. Of course, it dose demonstrate contempt of the orders of the Court. The consent/approval was granted by the State for filing the special appeal only on 04.05.2016 again with delay, as, the request was forwarded on 11/12.04.2016. This hardly shows any promptness or diligence on the part of the appellants. 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 Schedule appended to the Limitation Act, 1963. The appeal was filed on 21.05.2016. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent says that the judgment has been complied in part and arrears of pension and post retiral dues from 2021 to 2024 have been paid and current pension from 2024 is also being paid to the sole respondent-petitioner. 7. Looking into the entire scenario, especially as, the impugned judgment is of 2016, we are now in 2025 and the delay of three months and two days in filing the appeal has not been satisfactorily explained, we are not inclined to condone such delay at this stage. The application for condonation of delay is rejected. SPLAD No. 200 of 2016 2 8. Consequently, the special appeal stands dismissed. November 18, 2025 R.K.P. SPLAD No. 200 of 2016 3 (Rajeev Bharti,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAJ KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench