State Of U.P.Thr.Prin Secy Rural Devp.In W.P.2280 Sers O6 v. Badloo Ram

2. Heard Shri Pratul Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and Dr. L.P. Mishra assisted by Ms. Nehha Chadda and Ms. Annapurna Agnihotri, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. A Special Appeal was filed by the State in 2008 challenging the judgment and order dated 19.04.2006 passed in Writ Petition No. 2280 (S/S) of 2006 by which a direction was given to the appellants herein to consider the case of the respondent-petitioner for regularisation under the U.P. Regularisation of Daily Wages Appointments of Group 'D' Posts Rules, 2001 along with other similarly situated eligible candidates subject to their eligibility in accordance with the Rules.

4. The appeal is delayed by one year and ten months, it having been filed on 20.03.2008. In the interregnum in pursuance to the directions for consideration the respondents herein were considered and their services were regularized. The respondent no. 1 has died. His legal representatives have been substituted and are on record. Respondent no. 2 has retired.

5. Be that as it may, we have gone through the affidavit filed in support of 2 SPLAD No. 183 of 2008 the application for condonation of delay keeping in mind that limitation prescribed for filing such appeals under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 is 30 days vide Chapter IX Rule 10 of the Rules, 1952 read with Article 117 of the Schedule appended to the Limitation Act, 1963.

6. After passing of the judgment and order dated 19.04.2006 as per affidavit aforesaid, on 23.06.2006 the Project Director, D.R.D.A., Bahraich requested the Commissioner, Rural Development, U.P. Lucknow to provide necessary direction in respect of it. This itself shows the casual and negligent manner in which the appellants proceeded in a matter where a judgment had been passed against them way back on

19.04.2006 but for two months they did nothing and only thereafter sought guidance from higher officials.

7. Thereafter, it is said that the Project Director, D.R.D.A., Bahraich wrote a letter dated 07.08.2006 to the Principal Secretary, Rural Development, Govt. of U.P. as well as to the District Magistrate and Chief Development Officer, Bahraich that four months have passed but no instructions have been received for compliance of the judgment and order. This also goes to show abject apathy, negligence and lack of diligence on the part of the appellants and utter absence of promptness on their part either to comply the judgment or challenge by filing an appeal under Chapter VII Rule 5.

8. In October, 2006 the State Government wrote to the Project Director, D.R.D.A., Bahraich about certain errors in communications made to it whereupon the Project Director, D.R.D.A., Bahraich vide letter dated

08.11.2006 informed that the writ petition had incorrectly been mentioned and also sent point wise report to the Special Secretary, Rural Development, Govt. of U.P. Bare perusal of the affidavit indicates leisurely manner in which the appellants were pursuing with the matter with a gap of almost two months at every step.

9. On 14.02.2007 the Project Director, D.R.D.A., Bahraich sent a reminder to the State Government to provide guidance and when no directions were received from the Higher Authorities the said Project 3 SPLAD No. 183 of 2008 Director vide his letter dated 17.02.2007 granted pay-scale of Rs.2550- 3200 on the basis of judgment and order dated 19.04.2006.

10. The affidavit then says that the respondent no. 1 died on 04.05.2007.

11. On 23.08.2007 the Commissioner, Rural Development, U.P. Lucknow requested the State Government to take a decision in respect of the aforesaid judgment which had been pending before it for long. This again is indicative of the casual manner in which the State Authorities dealt with this issue.

12. Ultimately, vide letter dated 06.09.2007 the State Government directed the C.D.O., Bahraich to file a special appeal in the light of the interim order dated 22.03.2007 passed in Special Appeal No. 259 of 2007 which was a matter relating to compassionate appointment but the issue of maintainability of writ petition against D.R.D.O. was involved therein.

13. On 15.09.2007 the C.D.O., Bahraich directed the Project Director to file an appeal. The Project Director, thereafter, contacted the learned Chief Standing Counsel of this Court at Lucknow in September, 2007. The affidavit goes on to mention the correspondence and other actions taken thereafter and ultimately, the appeal, as already stated above, was filed on 20.03.2008.

14. It is not out of place to mention that a Full Bench of this Court has held D.R.D.A. as being amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, however, we are not concerned with the merits of the issues involved herein, keeping in mind the law declared recently by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Shivamma (Dead) by LRs. Vs. Karnataka Housing Board and Ors. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine 1969, the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay reflects very poorly on the casual and negligent attitude of the State in filing the appeal with inordinate delay. The explanation offered is nothing but a bunch of lame excuses which can not be accepted in view of what has been declared by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Shivamma (supra). We, accordingly, reject the application for condonation of delay in filing the special appeal. 4 SPLAD No. 183 of 2008

15. Consequently, the special appeal stands dismissed. November 20, 2025 R.K.P. (Zafeer Ahmad,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) RAJ KUMAR PATEL RAJ KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench

2. Heard Shri Pratul Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and Dr. L.P. Mishra assisted by Ms. Nehha Chadda and Ms. Annapurna Agnihotri, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. A Special Appeal was filed by the State in 2008 challenging the judgment and order dated 19.04.2006 passed in Writ Petition No. 2280 (S/S) of 2006 by which a direction was given to the appellants herein to consider the case of the respondent-petitioner for regularisation under the U.P. Regularisation of Daily Wages Appointments of Group 'D' Posts Rules, 2001 along with other similarly situated eligible candidates subject to their eligibility in accordance with the Rules.

4. The appeal is delayed by one year and ten months, it having been filed on 20.03.2008. In the interregnum in pursuance to the directions for consideration the respondents herein were considered and their services were regularized. The respondent no. 1 has died. His legal representatives have been substituted and are on record. Respondent no. 2 has retired.

5. Be that as it may, we have gone through the affidavit filed in support of 2 SPLAD No. 183 of 2008 the application for condonation of delay keeping in mind that limitation prescribed for filing such appeals under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 is 30 days vide Chapter IX Rule 10 of the Rules, 1952 read with Article 117 of the Schedule appended to the Limitation Act, 1963.

6. After passing of the judgment and order dated 19.04.2006 as per affidavit aforesaid, on 23.06.2006 the Project Director, D.R.D.A., Bahraich requested the Commissioner, Rural Development, U.P. Lucknow to provide necessary direction in respect of it. This itself shows the casual and negligent manner in which the appellants proceeded in a matter where a judgment had been passed against them way back on

19.04.2006 but for two months they did nothing and only thereafter sought guidance from higher officials.

7. Thereafter, it is said that the Project Director, D.R.D.A., Bahraich wrote a letter dated 07.08.2006 to the Principal Secretary, Rural Development, Govt. of U.P. as well as to the District Magistrate and Chief Development Officer, Bahraich that four months have passed but no instructions have been received for compliance of the judgment and order. This also goes to show abject apathy, negligence and lack of diligence on the part of the appellants and utter absence of promptness on their part either to comply the judgment or challenge by filing an appeal under Chapter VII Rule 5.

8. In October, 2006 the State Government wrote to the Project Director, D.R.D.A., Bahraich about certain errors in communications made to it whereupon the Project Director, D.R.D.A., Bahraich vide letter dated

08.11.2006 informed that the writ petition had incorrectly been mentioned and also sent point wise report to the Special Secretary, Rural Development, Govt. of U.P. Bare perusal of the affidavit indicates leisurely manner in which the appellants were pursuing with the matter with a gap of almost two months at every step.

9. On 14.02.2007 the Project Director, D.R.D.A., Bahraich sent a reminder to the State Government to provide guidance and when no directions were received from the Higher Authorities the said Project 3 SPLAD No. 183 of 2008 Director vide his letter dated 17.02.2007 granted pay-scale of Rs.2550- 3200 on the basis of judgment and order dated 19.04.2006.

10. The affidavit then says that the respondent no. 1 died on 04.05.2007.

11. On 23.08.2007 the Commissioner, Rural Development, U.P. Lucknow requested the State Government to take a decision in respect of the aforesaid judgment which had been pending before it for long. This again is indicative of the casual manner in which the State Authorities dealt with this issue.

12. Ultimately, vide letter dated 06.09.2007 the State Government directed the C.D.O., Bahraich to file a special appeal in the light of the interim order dated 22.03.2007 passed in Special Appeal No. 259 of 2007 which was a matter relating to compassionate appointment but the issue of maintainability of writ petition against D.R.D.O. was involved therein.

13. On 15.09.2007 the C.D.O., Bahraich directed the Project Director to file an appeal. The Project Director, thereafter, contacted the learned Chief Standing Counsel of this Court at Lucknow in September, 2007. The affidavit goes on to mention the correspondence and other actions taken thereafter and ultimately, the appeal, as already stated above, was filed on 20.03.2008.

14. It is not out of place to mention that a Full Bench of this Court has held D.R.D.A. as being amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, however, we are not concerned with the merits of the issues involved herein, keeping in mind the law declared recently by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Shivamma (Dead) by LRs. Vs. Karnataka Housing Board and Ors. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine 1969, the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay reflects very poorly on the casual and negligent attitude of the State in filing the appeal with inordinate delay. The explanation offered is nothing but a bunch of lame excuses which can not be accepted in view of what has been declared by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Shivamma (supra). We, accordingly, reject the application for condonation of delay in filing the special appeal. 4 SPLAD No. 183 of 2008

15. Consequently, the special appeal stands dismissed. November 20, 2025 R.K.P. (Zafeer Ahmad,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) RAJ KUMAR PATEL RAJ KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench