Shiv Mangal Singh And Another 574 ... vs Rajendra Prasad Srivastava And ...
2019 Latest Caselaw 5539 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 2
 

 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 226 of 2014
 

 
Appellant :- Shiv Mangal Singh And Another 574 (S/S)2012
 
Respondent :- Rajendra Prasad Srivastava And Ors.
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Manjive Shukla,M.B.Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Illigible
 

 
Hon'ble Ajai Lamba,J.

Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.

(Application No.42637 of 2014)

1. Shiv Mangal Singh and another have filed the appeal which is beyond limitation.

2. None has appeared on behalf of the appellants. Case relates to the year 2014. Five years have gone by. We do not find any justifiable reason to adjourn the case to await appearance of the counsel.

3. For the reasons given in the affidavit accompanying the application for condonation of delay and in view of the fact that learned counsel for the respondent State has not opposed the condonation of delay, we hereby allow the application.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent State prays for taking up the main case/appeal for adjudication today itself.

8.7.2019

kkb/

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 226 of 2014

Appellant :- Shiv Mangal Singh And Another 574 (S/S)2012

Respondent :- Rajendra Prasad Srivastava And Ors.

Counsel for Appellant :- Manjive Shukla,M.B.Singh

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Illigible

Hon'ble Ajai Lamba,J.

Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.

(ORAL)

1. Shiv Mangal Singh and Sunder Lal Mishra have preferred this special appeal in challenge to order dated 12.3.2012 rendered in Writ Petition No.574(S/S) of 2012 Rajendra Prasad Srivastava and others versus State of U.P. and others.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants has not appeared to prosecute the appeal. The appeal relates to the year 2014. This Court cannot wait for indefinite period to await appearance of the counsel.

3. With the assistance of Mr. Siddharth Dhaon, learned counsel for the State, we have gone through the pleadings and contents of the impugned order.

4. On a reference to the memorandum of parties to the writ petition, we find that Shiv Mangal Singh and Sunder Lal Mishra, the appellants were neither writ petitioners nor respondents.

5. The issue itself relates to parity in the pay-scale etc.

6. We find no reason to entertain the special appeal at the instance of the appellants who were not a party to the lis in the writ Court. Also the appeal has not been prosecuted. The counsel has not appeared.

7. For the reasons given above, the special appeal is dismissed.

Order Date :- 8.7.2019

kkb/