Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. Thru. The Prin. Secy. ... vs Krishna Kumar on 30 January, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:6340-DB
Court No. - 1
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 34 of 2025
Appellant :- State Of U.P. Thru. The Prin. Secy. Public Works Deptt. Govt. Of U.P. Lko. And 4 Others
Respondent :- Krishna Kumar
Counsel for Appellant :- C.S.C.
Counsel for Respondent :- S.P. Singh Somvanshi
Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J.
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
C.M. Application No.1 of 2025 (Application for condonation of delay in filing the Special Appeal):
1. Heard the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State, Sri S.P. Singh Somvanshi, the learned counsel for the opposite party and perused the records.
2. The instant intra-Court Appeal filed by the State is delayed by 149 days as on the date of filing i.e. 27.01.2024.
3. The appeal is accompanied with an application seeking condonation of delay supported by an affidavit. In the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application, we find that just and plausible reasons have been disclosed by the applicants-appellants seeking condonation of delay.
4. In absence of any objection and the explanation offered being bona fide, the application for condonation of delay is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
5. Let the Special Appeal be assigned a regular number.
Order on the Special Appeal:
6. By means of the instant intra-Court Appeal filed under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, the appellants have challenged the validity of a judgment and order dated 31.07.2024, passed by an Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court in Writ-A No.5365 of 2024: Krishna Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others, whereby the writ court has allowed the petition filed by the respondent-Krishna Kumar and the appellants were directed to regularize the respondent's appointment made on compassionate basis with effect from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 12.06.2002.
7. The learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has submitted that although the respondent was initially appointed in the year 2002 his services already stood regularized by means of an order dated 30.08.2010 and there was no occasion for directing regularization of his services with effect from 2002 in the writ petition filed by him in the year 2024.
8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the respondent's services have not been regularized till date. The order dated 30.08.1010 referred by the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel merely gives appointment to the respondent in regular work charged establishment.
9. A copy of office order dated 30.08.2020 annexed as Annexure No.6 to the writ petition is available on record and it provides that numerous employees named in the order, including the petitioner, who were working on daily wage basis in Public Works Department in District Pratapgarh, be appointed in regular work charged establishment on the basis of recommendation dated 20.08.2010 made by a Selection Committee. Thus, it is clear that the by means of an order dated 30.08.2010 the respondent was given appointment in regular work charged establishment and his services have not been regularized.
10. Accordingly, we find no force in the submission made by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel. No other point was pressed before this court.
11. The special appeal is bereft of any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.
[Subhash Vidyarthi, J.] [A.R. Masoodi, J.]
Order Date :- 30.1.2025
Ram.
