Allahabad High Court
Sukkhu vs Board Of Revenue,U.P. Allahabad ... on 20 July, 2021
Bench: Sangeeta Chandra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 6
Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 15162 of 2021
Petitioner :- Sukkhu
Respondent :- Board Of Revenue,U.P. Allahabad Thru. Its Chairman & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vidya Kant Sharma,Dileep Kumar Pathak
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dilip Kumar Pandey
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
(1) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel and Shri Dilip Kumar Pandey, appearing for the Gaon Sabha.
(2) This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the orders dated 03.02.2021 and 06.04.2017 passed by the Opposite party no.1-Board of Revenue, U.P. Allahabad, in Revision No.19/1997-1998, RES/58/2021/Sitapur, (Sukkhu Vs. Paras Ram and another).
(3) It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had filed a writ petition against the order dated 30.04.1997 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow in Appeal No.318/89-90, (Paras Ram Vs. Shukkhu). The said revision had arisen from the judgment dated 28.02.1990 in Case No.64/114/11/24, under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. The Assistant Collector, First Class, had passed the order with regard to land bearing Gata Nos.1126 and 1127. Initially, the petitioner was granted an interim order in the aforesaid revision on 13.08.1998. Thereafter, on the assurance given by the petitioner counsel that he will be called whenever it was needed the petitioner went at home and did not pursue the matter further. The said revision was dismissed in default on 06.04.2017. The petitioner engaged another counsel and applied for certified copy which was received on 05.11.2020. Thereafter, the recall application was filed on 29.12.2020 without any further delay. The Opposite party no.1 has rejected the recall application on the ground of delay although the same was properly explained in the affidavit filed in support of the application for Condonation of delay.
(4) Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Nand Kishore Vs. State of Punjab reported in (1995) 6 SCC 614, wherein it has been submitted that the Supreme Court had condoned 31 years delay in filing the Special Leave Petition. This Court has carefully gone through the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court and finds that initially the appellant therein had challenged his order for compulsory retirement without challenging the provision enabling the Government to retire a servant after 10 years of qualifying service. The writ petition was dismissed on 02.02.1963. After the judgment was rendered by the Supreme Court in Moti Ram Deka Vs. G.M. North Eastern Frontier Railway reported in AIR 1964 SC 600, where the Supreme Court has held that a person who substantially holds a permanent post had a right to continue in service subject to two exceptions that is a superannuation and compulsory retirement and that Rules of compulsory retirement could only be treated as valid, if they had permitted the employee concerned to put any minimum period of service for qualifying for pension. The appellant filed a Suit on 24.02.1964 for a declaration for the order for compulsory retirement dated 06.01.1961 as void. However the State of Punjab raised an objection that earlier decision in the writ petition was applicable in the said case and the subsequent Suit was barred by the principles of resjudicata.
(5) The Trial Court did not approve the objections raised by the State of Punjab on the ground that similar regulations had been struck down by the Supreme Court itself and held that the order of compulsory retirement passed thereunder was illegal. The State of Punjab filed a regular First Appeal and matter was placed before a Division Bench who referred the question of law to a Full Bench of the Court. The Full Bench answered the question in the affirmative with regard to whether the decision of the High Court in the earlier writ petition would constitute resjudicata. Aggrieved about such decision the appellant sought leave to Appeal.
(6) The Bench which considered the Appeal in December, 1990, observed that the decision of the Punjab High Court rendered on 05.02.1962 in the petitioner's earlier writ ought to have been challenged by him in Appeal accompanied by an appropriate application for Condonation of delay. The appellant thereafter challenged the decision given in 1962. The Supreme Court considering the peculiar facts and circumstances condoned the delay in filing of Special Leave Petition against the judgment rendered by the Punjab High Court.
(7) The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is clearly inapplicable in the facts of the case. The writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Member (Judicial), rejecting the restoration application filed on 06.01.2021 against an order for dismissal of the revision for non-prosecution on 06.04.2017. This Court has carefully perused the order dated 03.02.2021 as also the order dated 06.04.2017 and does not find any good ground to show interference in the order passed by the Opposite party no.1.
(8) The writ petition stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 20.7.2021
PAL
