Smt. Sanjana Devi vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Mahila ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1818 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 1
 

 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 17 of 2023
 

 
Appellant :- Smt. Sanjana Devi
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Mahila Evam Bal Vikas Deptt. Anubhag-24 Civil Secrt. Lko. And Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Ram Pheran Dwivedi
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

1. Heard Sri Ram Pheran Dwivedi, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Amitabh Rai, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. The instant special appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 13.12.2022 passed by an Hon'ble Single Judge in Writ-A No.8370 of 2022.

3. The aforesaid writ petition has been filed pleading that the petitioner-appellant had been appointed as Anganwadi Karyakatri on 12.3.2010 and her services were terminated by means of an order dated 18.11.2011, on the basis of certain complaints that the petitioner had secured appointment on the basis of a forged High School certificate. Prior to termination of her services a show-cause notice was issued to the appellant, but she failed to submit any response and, therefore, her contract of appointment was cancelled.

4. The Hon'ble Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed in the year 2022 on the ground that the petitioner has not given any credible explanation of delay for filing the writ petition after a lapse of eleven years and the Hon'ble Single Judge also observed that although a number of representations have been annexed to the writ petition, but there is nothing on record to indicate that same had been received by the concerned authority or that those had been sent by post.

5. It is settled law that a person seeking indulgence of the court must approach the court with due promptitude and a writ petition filed challenging an order of termination after expiry of eleven years since passing of the termination order, suffers from latches and we are in agreement with the view taken by Hon'ble the Single Judge that the writ petition was liable to be dismissed on the ground of latches. We do not find any good ground to interfere with the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Single Judge. The writ petition lacks merits and is accordingly dismissed.

.

.

(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)

Order Date :- 17.1.2023

A.Nigam