Madhya Pradesh High Court
Babulal Chandrawanshi vs Gram Panchayat Girari on 9 December, 2021
Author: Chief Justice
1 WA-519-2017
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR MADHYA PRADESH,
AT JABALPUR
(DIVISION BENCH)
WA No. 519 of 2017
BABULAL CHANDRAWANSHI .....Appellant
Versus
GRAM PANCHAYAT GIRARI AND OTHERS .....Respondents
Coram :
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravi Malimath, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla
Presence
:
Shri P. N. Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Darshan Soni, learned Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
JUDGMENT(Oral)
(09-12-2021)
Per: Ravi Malimath, Chief Justice
The case of the appellant is that he was appointed with the respondent
Gram Panchayat in 1995. In the year 2003, he was terminated from services.
Aggrieved by the same, he preferred an appeal before the Sub Divisional
Officer (SDO), Pushprajgarh District- Anuppur. The Same was dismissed on
the ground of delay. It was challenged in the revision which was dismissed.
The second revision was also rejected. Thereafter, the instant writ petition
was filed which was again dismissed on the ground of delay. Questioning the
same, the instant appeal is filed.
Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the order passed by
learned Single Judge as well as the lower authorities are bad in law. Same is
disputed by Shri Darshan Soni, learned Government Advocate.
On hearing learned counsels, we are of the view that appropriate
interference is called for.
The limitation to file an appeal before the SDO is a period of 30 days.
The appeal was dismissed on the ground that the application for condonation
2 WA-519-2017
of delay was not filed. A perusal of the record indicates that the appeal was
filed on 04.06.2003, namely after about 5 months, so the delay is of about 4
months.
We are of the considered view that the delay is required to be
considered in a more liberal manner. The appellant was working as a
Panchayat Karmi. He cannot be expected to know the exact position of law
for preferring an appeal. Even otherwise, the delay is merely just for a period
of four months. Ultimately, the rights of the appellant had to be decided in a
substantial manner and it cannot be circumscribed by such technicalities.
Unfortunately, even the higher authorities have also not looked into the
merit of the case and has dismissed the same only on the ground of delay.
Therefore, we are of the view that appropriate interference is called for. Only
because there has been a long delay in disposal of the writ petition, it cannot
be held against the appellant. His contentions regarding wrongful termination
require to be considered on facts by the concerned authority. Therefore, we
find that gross injustice has occurred to the appellant.
Consequently, the appeal is allowed.
The order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 23.03.2017 in
W.P.No.9248 of 2006 is set aside.
The writ petition is allowed.
The SDO, Pushprajgarh, District Anuppur is directed to consider the
appeal of the petitioner in accordance with law. Delay in approaching the said
authority stands condoned. He shall consider the same on merit. To this
extent, the appellant to appear before the SDO on 10.01.2022. The SDO to
proceed on merit on that date and onwards and pass an appropriate order as
expeditiously as possible.
The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
Pending interlocutory applications, if any, are also disposed off.
3 WA-519-2017
(RAVI MALIMATH) (VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
anu
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by ANUPRIYA SHARMA
CHOUBEY
Date: 2021.12.11 10:43:44 IST
