State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Secondary ... vs Shiv Kumar Shukla And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 353 ALL

Allahabad High Court

State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Secondary ... vs Shiv Kumar Shukla And Another on 1 May, 2025

Author: Jaspreet Singh

Bench: Jaspreet Singh

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:24995-DB
 
Chief Justice's Court
 

 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 123 of 2025
 

 
Appellant :- State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Secondary Education Lko and 5 Others
 
Respondent :- Shiv Kumar Shukla and Another
 
Counsel for Appellant :- C.S.C., Vikrant Raghuvanshi
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Om Prakash Mani Tripathi, Vishal Pandey
 

 
Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice
 
Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.
 

1. The appeal is barred by 67 days.

2. An application seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the appellants.

3. For the reasons indicated in the application, supported by affidavit, the same is allowed.

4. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

5. This appeal is directed against order dated 23.11.2024 passed in Writ - A No. 6791 of 2024, whereby the writ petition, filed by the respondents, has been allowed and the impugned order dated 29.07.2024 so far as the same did not grant promotional pay scale and pension to the respondents was quashed and consequential directions were given. The order was passed by learned Single Judge by relying on a Division Bench judgment in State of U.P. and others Vs. Surendra Singh and another : Special Appeal Defective No. 172 of 2023, decided on 20.04.2023.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants does not dispute that the issue, as raised in the present special appeal, is squarely covered by order in the case of Surendra Singh (supra), however, submissions have been made that against the order passed in the case of Surendra Singh (supra) and other similar matters, several special leave petitions are pending consideration before Hon'ble Supreme Court.

7. Counsel for the respondents made submissions that mere pendency of special leave petitions before Hon'ble Supreme Court by itself cannot be a reason to keep the matter pending before this Court as the matter, admittedly, is squarely covered by order in the case of Surendra Singh (supra).

8. In view of the submissions made by counsel for the parties as the issue as raised in the present appeal, is squarely covered by order in the case of Surendra Singh (supra), we do not find any reason to take a view different from what has been taken in the case of Surendra Singh (supra).

9. Consequently, the special appeal is dismissed.

Order Date :- 1.5.2025

Mukesh Pal/Rakesh

(Jaspreet Singh, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ)