SPA/355/2022
2022 Latest Caselaw 3675 UK

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                                  AT NAINITAL
                   HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI VIPIN SANGHI
                                          AND
                  HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH CHANDRA KHULBE

                    SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 355 OF 2022

                          17TH NOVEMBER, 2022

BETWEEN:
Pramod Chandra Pant                                             .....Appellant.
And

State of Uttarakhand & others                                   ....Respondents.

Counsel for the Appellant : Mr. Anup Kumar Verma, learned counsel.

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 :             Mr. Anil     K.     Bisht, learned
                                                   Additional        Chief    Standing
                                                   Counsel.

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 & 4 :             Mr.   S.S.   Chauhan,       learned
                                                   counsel.

The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT:(per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Vipin Sanghi)

The present special appeal is directed against the

order dated 09.05.2018, passed by the learned Single Judge

in Writ Petition (S/S) No.1018 of 2017, preferred by the

appellant, wherein the appellant has sought the relief of

regularization.

2. The case of the appellant on merits was that he

was appointed as a Clerk on 01.08.1989 by the respondent-

department. He claimed that he was continuously serving in

that capacity. After the rendering of the judgment by the

Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma

Devi & others, (2006) 4 SCC 1, he sought regularization.

3. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ

petition by referring to Paragraph No.53 of the judgment of

the Supreme Court in Uma Devi (supra), and while observing

that the appellant was not working against any sanctioned

vacant post.

4. The present appeal has been filed highly belatedly

with a delay of 773 days. The explanation furnished by the

appellant for the said delay is that the counsel engaged by

him did not apprise the appellant of the dismissal of the writ

petition on 09.05.2018, and only when the appellant

contacted his counsel in November, 2019 telephonically, he

learnt about the dismissal of the writ petition. He claimed

that, thereafter, in the month of December, 2019, he went to

the chamber of the earlier counsel, and asked him as to what

is the remedy for him against the dismissal of the writ

petition. He was advised that he should prefer special appeal

before the High Court. He further stated that since the said

counsel had become Standing Counsel for the State, he could

not prefer the special appeal and, therefore, the appellant

had to engage another counsel. The appellant then asked the

earlier counsel to return the case file, and the appellant was

asked to come on another day for collecting the original

records of the writ petition. He further states that in the first

week of January, 2020, he went to the chamber of his earlier

counsel and received the entire record. He states that the

Court was closed for winter vacations and he approached

another counsel in the first week of March, 2020. He further

states that from 22.03.2020, a lockdown was imposed due to

COVID-19 pandemic. Aforesaid are the reasons for the appeal

not being filed in time, which was eventually filed on

03.11.2022. Reliance is also placed by the learned counsel for

the appellant on the judgment of the Division Bench of the

Allahabad High Court in the case of Shiv Kumar Pandey vs.

State of U.P. & others, Special Appeal Defective No.417

of 2021, decided on 26.10.2021, to submit that the litigant

should not make to suffer on account of lapse of his counsel.

5. We have heard learned counsels and perused the

record as well as the judgment relied upon, and do not find

any reasonable justification furnished by the appellant to

prefer the present appeal with a delay of 773 days. The

appellant claims that he contacted his counsel in November,

2019 and learnt about the dismissal of the writ petition on

09.05.2018. This shows that the appellant did not follow up

his case with his counsel for about a year and a half after the

dismissal of the writ petition. This factum establishes the

appellant's own casual approach and lack of diligence on his

part in following up his case. Even though, he claims that he

learnt of the dismissal of the writ petition in November, 2019,

even, thereafter, it appears that the appellant did not act with

expedition, as he took his sweet time to have the special

appeal prepared. He had sufficient time to file the special

appeal before the on-set of the pandemic on 24.03.2020.

Even, thereafter, the pandemic abated and the appellant

could have preferred the special appeal once the situation had

improved. However, he failed to do so. The suspension of

limitation ordered by the Supreme Court also came to an end

on 31.03.2022. There is no explanation as to why the

appellant did not file the present appeal soon thereafter. The

judgment relied upon by the appellant has no application in

the facts of the present case. The averments are, even

otherwise vague and devoid of particulars. The name of the

earlier counsel is not disclosed. It is not claimed that any

notice has been issued to him alleging negligence, or any

action has been taken against him before the Bar Council for

the alleged negligence. The story setup by the appellant is,

therefore, not even believable.

6. For the aforesaid reasons, we are not inclined to

entertain the present special appeal, and the same is, hereby,

dismissed.

7. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

(VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.)

(RAMESH CHANDRA KHULBE, J.) Dated: 17th November, 2022 NISHANT