Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P.Throu.Prin.Secy.Home ... vs Gyan Prakash And Another on 20 October, 2020
Bench: Rajan Roy, Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 16 Case :- SERVICE BENCH No. - 17671 of 2020 Petitioner :- State Of U.P.Throu.Prin.Secy.Home Deptt. Lko.And Another Respondent :- Gyan Prakash And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- C.S.C. Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
Heard Sri Alok Sharma for the State.
State has filed this petition challenging judgment and order dated 15.5.2019 passed by U.P. State Public Services Tribunal at Lucknow in claim petition No. 1557 of 2018 (Gyan Prakash versus State of U.P. and others). The delay in filing the petition has been sought to be explained in paragraphs 38 to 45. It is admitted to the petitioners that the judgment and order dated 15.5.2019 was received in the office of petitioner No.2 at Lucknow on 20.5.2019 itself. On 29.5.2019 the matter was placed before the competent authority and vide letter dated 11.6.2019 legal opinion was sought from learned Chief Standing Counsel who gave his opinion on 28.6.2019. Then the Jail Head Quarter referred the matter to the administrative department vide letter dated 10.7.2019. Reminders were sent on 19.8.2019 and 1.10.2019. Law department granted the contest order on 22.10.2019. The jail department requested the C.S.C at Lucknow vide letter dated 31.10.2019 to take steps for preparation and filing of the petition. The file was handed over to the Standing Counsel on 20.11.2019 along with letter dated 15.11.2019. The required information was furnished to the Standing Counsel on 21.12.2019. The petition was drafted on 22.12.2019. Thereafter further drafting of pleadings took place regarding explanation for the delay which was complete on 12.2.2020. It is then said that the lock down came into force some time in March, 2020.
The explanation offered is nothing but exchange of correspondence between different authorities of State. It does not give any plausible and justifiable reason for the delay. In fact the facts narrated in the pleading show that the matter was dealt with gradually and negligently and almost at every level. There was no reason as to why the petition could not have been filed earlier. The delay being of more than one year and the same not having been explained satisfactorily, petition is liable to be dismissed on ground of delay and laches itself specially as the punishment which has been quashed by the Tribunal is a minor punishment of censure.
The petition is accordingly dismissed on ground of delay and laches.
Order Date :- 20.10.2020 prabhat