State Of Uttarakhand & Others ... vs Head Constable Jagatram Bhatt
2023 Latest Caselaw 2726 UK

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                                AT NAINITAL
                  HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI VIPIN SANGHI
                                       AND
                     HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAKESH THAPLIYAL

                     SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 975 OF 2018

                        18TH SEPTEMBER, 2023

State of Uttarakhand & others                             .....Appellants.
                                     Versus

Head Constable Jagatram Bhatt                                 ....Respondent.

With

SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 550 OF 2018

SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 973 OF 2018

SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 978 OF 2018

SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 979 OF 2018

SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 980 OF 2018

SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 981 OF 2018

SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 1016 OF 2018

SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 1017 OF 2018

SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 1023 OF 2018

SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 1046 OF 2018

SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 30 OF 2019

Counsel for the Appellants : Mr. J.C. Pande, learned Standing Counsel.

Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. Tapan Singh, learned counsel.

The Court made the following:

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

These appeals have been preferred by the State of

Uttarakhand against the common order passed by the learned

Single Judge in a batch of writ petitions, including Writ

Petition (S/S) No.1283 of 2016, dated 20.04.2017. The

special appeals have been preferred with the delay of 558

days.

2. The affidavit filed by the appellants to explain the

delay has been perused. The same shows that the delay is

occasioned on ground of the fact that, initially, the appellants

decided to accept the judgment of the learned Single Judge,

and only, subsequently, the decision was taken to challenge

the same.

3. We are not satisfied with the explanation furnished

by the appellants to explain the said delay. Mere exchange of

correspondence within the Government Departments and

Offices cannot be a reason to condone the delay. No sufficient

cause has been disclosed to justify the substantial delay in

the filing of these appeals.

4. We are, therefore, inclined to dismiss these special

appeals as being barred by limitation.

5. That apart, the appellants have been granted the

liberty to proceed in the matter of reduction of pay of the

respondent(s)- writ petitioner(s), after compliance of the

principles of natural justice, which had not been done earlier.

6. On merits as well, we do not find any justification

to interfere with the impugned order.

7. The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.

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

(VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.)

(RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J.) Dated: 18th September, 2023 NISHANT