HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION DEFECTIVE No. - 136 of 2025 Court No. - 1 HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J. HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J. (Order on C.M.Application No.1 of 2025; Application for Condonation of Delay) 1. Heard. 2. This is an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the review application which is supported with an affidavit. 3. As regard, the delay, the applicant's Counsel says that he has filed the application seeking review of the judgment dated 20.02.2020 only after coming to know about the said judgment as his father had died long back and mother had predeceased him. No objections have been filed to the delay condonation application. In the peculiar facts of the case, the delay is condoned and the application for condonation of delay is allowed. Now we proceed to hear the review application finally. (Order on Review Application) 1. Heard. 2. The applicant seeking review of the judgment dated 20.02.2020 passed in Special Appeal No.631 of 2007 is the son/legal representative of the original appellant-Janardan Prasad Yadav, he died on 20.04.2009 i.e. after Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anil Kumar Maurya, Dr.Pramod Kumar Maurya, Priyanshi Maurya Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : C.S.C. Jaiprakash Yadav .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Agriculture Lko. And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) filing the appeal, but his Counsel diligently pursued the appeal on his behalf presumably unaware about the death of his client. Be that as it may, the appeal succeeded and the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 20.04.2007 passed in Writ Petition No.484 (S/S) of 1987 as well as the punishment order dated 29.09.1986 impugned in the writ petition was quashed. The order of punishment was one of dismissal. The writ petition was allowed and appellant was held entitled for all consequential benefits, however, with the observation that the said order shall not preclude the respondents from proceeding afresh in accordance with law from the stage after service of chargesheet. 3. Considering the fact that the appellant had already died in the year 2009 there was no question of proceeding afresh, in fact, Shri Nishant Shukla, learned Standing Counsel for the State has instructions that no fresh proceedings were initiated in pursuance to the said judgment. 4. When asked, as to why he is seeking review when the appeal had been allowed, learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the benefit of the judgment is not being extended to the applicant because he had not been substituted in place of his father. There is nothing on record to show that the judgment dated 20.020.2020 was challenged by the State. 5. Looking into the peculiar facts of this case, it is provided that all the legal representatives of the appellant including applicant seeking review would be entitled to the benefits flowing from the judgement dated 20.02.2020 and their claim in this regard would not be rejected on the ground that they were not made parties or were not substituted in the appeal as the said omission is only of a technical nature, the appeal having been allowed in favour of the appellant. The judgment dated 20.02.2020 passed in Special Appeal No.631 of 2007 is clarified accordingly. 6. Now the respondents shall comply the judgment dated 20.02.2020 unless already complied and extend whatever consequential benefits are admissible to the legal representatives of Janardan Prasad Yadav appellant of Special Appeal No.631 of 2007 and in this process, if they find that the applicant seeking review namely-Jaiprakash Yadav is the legal representative of the said Janardan Prasad Yadav then he shall also CMRAD No. 136 of 2025 2 be entitled to the said benefit as far as it may be permissible in law. It shall be open for the respondents to verify the legal representative of Janardan Prasad Yadav. Compliance shall be made within four months. 7. We, accordingly, dispose of this application for review in the aforesaid terms 8. Shri Nishant Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State shall communicate our order to all the concerned officers/authority of the State for compliance. October 13, 2025 -Piyush- CMRAD No. 136 of 2025 3 (Rajeev Bharti,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench