Allahabad High Court
Lajwanti Srivastava vs Up State Agro Industrial ... on 9 November, 2022
Bench: Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, Saurabh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 2
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 237 of 2022
Appellant :- Lajwanti Srivastava
Respondent :- Up State Agro Industrial Corporation Ltd. Thru M.D. Lucknow And Ors.
Counsel for Appellant :- Neelima Jaiswal,Niraj Kumar Srivastava,Pallavi Vatsala
Counsel for Respondent :- Surya Prakash Singh
Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J.
Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.
(C.M.Application No. 1 of 2022)
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Surya Prakash Singh and Ms. Anupama Bhadauria, learned counsel representing the U.P. State Agro Industrial Corporation Limited.
Having regard to the averments made in the application seeking condonation of delay and having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the delay has sufficiently been explained.
Accordingly, application is allowed and the delay in filing the Special Appeal is condoned.
(Order on memo of appeal)
This intra-court appeal filed under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court has questioned the order dated 27.09.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge whereby Writ-A No. 6405 has been dismissed as not maintainable before this Court at Lucknow with the liberty to file before the appropriate court.
It has been stated by learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner that the learned counsel representing the appellant-petitioner before the learned Single Judge could not place the facts and legal position correctly which has resulted in miscarriage of justice, inasmuch as that the appellant-petitioner is a senior citizen aged about 77 years and she has been claiming certain dues in respect of her husband who was employed with U.P. State Agro Industrial Corporation Limited. It has further been argued that she is residing at Lucknow and the claim put forth by her was in relation to payment of TA bill, incentive and certain deductions made from the salary of her husband. It has further been stated that even though the order under challenge before the learned Single Judge was passed by the Divisional Engineer, Gorakhpur, however, the said order will take effect at Lucknow and the payment of claim made by her, if any, has to be also made at Lucknow, hence the writ petition was maintainable before this Court at Lucknow.
It has been stated by learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner further that it is well settled principle of law that for any mistake by the learned counsel representing the party to proceedings before Court cannot be made to suffer. Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner has also relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nawal Kishore Sharma Vs. Union of India and others, reported in (2014) 9 Supreme Court Cases 329, wherein it has been held that a person received letter of rejection of disability pension at his/her native place where he/she is staying, cause of action to such a party will arise at his/her native place. Reliance of yet another judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court has been placed in the case of Shanti Devi alias Shanti Mishra Vs. Union of India and others, reported in (2020) 10 Supreme Court Cases 766, wherein it has been held that a retired employee who is receiving pension cannot be asked to go another court to file writ petition when he/she has a cause of action for filing writ petition at a particular High Court.
In this case as well, the appellant-petitioner is receiving pension at Lucknow and the payments which are being claimed by her are also to be paid at Lucknow. We may also notice that the appellant-petitioner is a senior citizen of 77 years of age and is a widowed lady.
In the aforesaid view of the matter, we are convinced that the writ petition filed by the appellant-petitioner was maintainable before this Court at Lucknow.
Accordingly, the Special Appeal is allowed. The order dated 27.09.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ-A No. 6405 of 2022 is hereby set aside. Writ-A No. 6405 of 2022 is restored to the Board of learned Single Judge where the learned counsel for the respondent-U.P.State Agro Industrial Corporation Limited shall file counter affidavit within three weeks. One week's time thereafter shall be available to the learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner to file rejoinder affidavit and thereafter the matter may be heard.
Having regard to the nature of dispute and also considering the fact that the appellant-petitioner is a senior citizen aged about 77 years and is a widowed lady, we request the learned Single Judge to expedite the proceedings of the writ petition and conclude the same as early as possible.
Order Date :- 9.11.2022/Sanjay
