Allahabad High Court
Vinay Kumar Shukla vs C/M K.P. Dharma Devi Laghu ... on 2 August, 2021
Bench: Ritu Raj Awasthi, Dinesh Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 1
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 256 of 2021
Appellant :- Vinay Kumar Shukla
Respondent :- C/M K.P. Dharma Devi Laghu Madhyamik Vidyalaya Thur Mgr &Ors
Counsel for Appellant :- Vinay Misra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,P.K. Singh 'Bisen'
Hon'ble Ritu Raj Awasthi,J.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
Notices on behalf of respondents no.2 and 3 have been accepted by learned Chief Standing Counsel, whereas Mr. P.K. Singh Bisen, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of opposite parties no.4 and 5.
Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the records.
This intra court appeal has been filed challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 16.09.2019, passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.6123 (SS) of 2008; Mata Prasad Singh and another Vs. C/M K.P. Dharma Devi Laghu Madhyamik Vidyalaya Maghi, Pratapgarh, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed.
The instant appeal has been filed with a reported delay of 652 days as on the date of filing i.e. 29.07.2021. It is accompanied with an application (C.M. Application No.89459 of 2021) for condonation of delay.
Mr. Vinay Misra, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the application for condonation of delay is supported with an affidavit. The appellant could not approach the court within time as initially the appellant had filed the writ petition by engaging the present counsel but subsequently he engaged other counsel who finally argued the writ petition leading to its dismissal on 16.09.2019. The counsel who was engaged to argue the writ petition did not inform about the order dated 16.09.2019 and the dismissal of writ petition, as such, the appellant did not know about the fate of writ petition. In the month of February, 2020 he came to Lucknow and obtained the case status report, whereupon it was divulged that the writ petition has been dismissed on 16.09.2019. Thereafter the appellant got in touch with present counsel and instructed him to file the instant appeal, however, the appeal could not be filed due to Covid-19 pandemic and it has been filed with delay.
We have considered the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant.
We are of the considered view that the explanation for the delay in filing of appeal is not at all sufficient. The writ petition was dismissed on 16.09.2019. The appellant did not find out the fate of the writ petition and only in the month of February, 2020, he obtained the case status report whereupon it was divulged to him that the writ petition has been dismissed. The appellant should have been more vigilant in seeking information about his case and in case he did not get information in time about the dismissal of the writ petition, then the appellant himself was responsible for the same and he cannot take the benefit by saying that his counsel did not inform him. It is to be noted that the present counsel who has filed the appeal was also the counsel for the appellant in the writ petition, as such, it cannot be believed that the present counsel did not inform him about the fate of the writ petition even in case it was argued by some other counsel.
So far as the merit of the order under challenge in the appeal is concerned, we have gone through the order impugned and as per the own case of the appellant the appellant was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher in the year 1978 by the Committee of Management, K.P. Dharma Devi Laghu Madhyamik Vidyalaya Maghi, Pratapgarh. The institution had come under grant-in-aid with effect from 1.3.1991. In the information sent regarding the teachers and the employees at the time of seeking grant-in-aid the name of appellant-petitioner was not sent. The institution after coming into grant-in-aid disbursed the salary to its teachers under grant-in-aid, however, the appellant-petitioner was not paid his salary from the State Exchequer. In was only in the year 2008 that the appellant-petitioner approached this court for payment of salary and got an interim order, however, said interim order was not complied and he was not paid any salary from the State Exchequer. It is to be noted that the names of only those teachers (four teachers) were approved by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari whose details were sent by the Committee of Management of the institution at the time of institution coming under grant-in-aid. Since the name of appellant was not sent by the Management of the Institution, as such, no approval was granted by the District Basic Education Officer for payment of salary to the appellant..
Learned Single Judge relying on the judgments of Apex Court in the cases of S.S. Balu and another Vs. State of Kerala and others; (2009) 2 SCC 479 as well as N.D.M.C. Vs. Pan Singh; (2007) 9 SCC 278 has held that the appellant-petitioner had approached this court with substantial delay and, as such, no interference was required to be granted by the Court.
We do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment and order passed by learned Single Judge. Even thereafter the appellant-petitioner has not improved his conduct as while filing the instant appeal he has approached the court after a delay of more than 652 days.
In view of above, we do not find any force in the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant so far as the merit part is concerned.
The special appeal, as such, is dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merit of the case.
.
(Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.) (Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.)
Order Date :- 2.8.2021
Ram.
