Akhanda Nand Rai vs State Of U.P. And Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 16225 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Akhanda Nand Rai vs State Of U.P. And Others on 8 May, 2024

Author: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi

Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:82832-DB
 
Court No. - 40
 

 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 74 of 2002
 

 
Appellant :- Akhanda Nand Rai
 
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- R.P.Yadav,Jai Prakash Rai,Mithlsh Kuamr Rai
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
 

Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J.

Ref: Delay Condonation Application

1. For the reasons stated in affidavit filed alongwith Delay Condonation Application, which constitutes sufficient cause, the Delay Condonation Application is allowed. Delay in filing the recall/restoration application is hereby condoned.

Ref: Civil Misc. Recall/Restoration Application

2. Heard learned counsel for appellant-applicant and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

3. Present recall/restoration application is moved seeking recall of the order dated 04.04.2017 dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution and to hear and decide the same on merits.

4. For the reasons stated in affidavit filed in support of Recall/Restoration Application, the application is allowed. The order dated 04.04.2017 is recalled. The Special Appeal is restored to is original number.

Ref: Special Appeal

5. Present intra-court appeal is preferred by appellant-petitioner against the judgement and order dated 06.11.2001 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.35054 of 2001 (Akhanda Nand Rai vs. State of U.P. and others).

6. The appellant-petitioner was working as Daftari on daily wages in Nagar Panchayat, Barhalganj. It is claimed that his services were regularized vide order dated 12.08.1999. It is further claimed that petitioner had worked upto the year 2001 but he was not paid salary and all of sudden, he was orally informed that his service are no longer required. Record in question reflects that by means of filing writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a mandamus directing the respondent authorities to ensure execution of order dated 12.08.1999, which was refused by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 06.11.2001 on the ground that the Writ Court cannot act as an executing Court and the remedy of petitioner lies by another way.

7. Upon perusing the impugned judgment and order, we find that learned Single Judge has appreciated the record and material, as has been placed and the writ petition has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an Intra-Court Special Appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities or perversities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned judgment and order. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, on a plain reading of the impugned judgment and order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmity or perversity qua the relief as has been sought for. As such, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order.

8. In view of above, the special appeal sans merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

Order Date :- 8.5.2024

A. Pandey