State of U.P. & Ors v. Jyotsana, wherein a similar issue was involved. The said judgment dated
Case Details
The services of petitioner's father who as a Constable in the Provincial Armed Constabulary was terminated vide order dated 30.05.1973, contained as Annexure No. 5. This order was challenged for the first time by the petitioner by means of Writ Petition no. 11653 (S/S) of 2019 which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge Bench on 25.04.2019 on the ground of delay and laches, relying upon a decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court dated 12.10.20215 rendered in Civil Appeal No. 8604 of 2015; In-Re: State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Jyotsana, wherein a similar issue was involved. The said judgment dated 25.04.2019 reads as under:- "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents. The petitioner, a son of a terminated employee Late. Prabhu Nath Singh is before this Court praying for setting aside the notice dated 30.05.1973, a copy of which is annexure 5 to the writ petition by which the petitioner's father had been informed that after receipt of the notice, the services of the father of the petitioner would stand terminated. From a perusal of record, it does not come out that the father of the petitioner namely Sri Prabhu Nath Singh who was working as a temporary constable had ever challenged the said notice or the termination order. From a perusal of record, it comes out that the petitioner's father had been terminated for participating in police agitation on 30.05.1973. The present petition has been filed after a period of almost 46 years from the date of issue of the alleged notice. In order to make out a case, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a letter dated 18.07.2016, a copy of which is annexure 3 to the petition by which the Commandant of the 27th Bn, PAC, Sitapur has asked the Superintendent of Police, Balia to give any proof as to whether the father of the petitioner is alive or has died or any such details. Placing reliance on the said letter, it is contended that the present petition may be decided by quashing the impugned notice of termination dated 30.05.1973 as already indicated above.It is contended that similarly circumstanced employees i.e those constable who were terminated in the year 1973 have been extended benefit by the respondents. On the other hand, learned Standing counsel has also placed reliance on an order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 8604 of 2015, Inre; State of U.P and ors Vs. Jyotsana decided on 12.10.2015 by which in similar circumstances where an employee had also been terminated in the year 1973 on account of having participated in a police agitation had approached the High Court after 30 years of his termination and his petition had been entertained by the High Court, the Hon'ble Supreme Court by the aforesaid order was of the view that the writ petition deserved to be dismissed on the ground of having approached the Court after 30 years.Thus, it is contended the present petition having been filed after delay of 46 years also deserves to be dismissed. Having heard the learned counsels for the contesting parties and having perused the records what this Court finds is that the petitioner is approaching challenging the termination order of his father dated 30.05.1973. The father of the petitioner has also died on 30.06.1994. From a perusal of record it does not come out that the father of the petitioner ever challenged the impugned notice of termination meaning thereby that he was perfectly satisfied with the notice of termination that had been issued way back in the year 1973 rather had sat silent in the matter for a period of almost 21 years till his death in 1994. Accordingly, present petition having been filed by the son of the terminated employee after period of 46 years cannot be entertained by this Court more particularly keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jyostana (supra). Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, no case for interference is made out. The writ petition is dismissed." The Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon an order dated 24.10.1998 passed in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 33998 of 1998 filed by the wife and petitioner-son of the deceased which was disposed of with a direction to the authority concerned to decide the petitioner's representation. However, it is an admitted fact that no decision was taken in pursuance thereof. Ultimately, the petitioner and her mother filed a writ petition bearing Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 49500 of 2000 seeking compassionate appointment wherein an order was passed in the year 2000 directing the concerned officials to take a decision in the matter. Surprisingly enough, the termination order had never been set aside, but it was informed to the Court that in view of certain orders passed by the High Court and the Supreme Court, the father of the petitioner is deemed to have continued continued his service till his death on 07.01.1997. However, learned Counsel for the petitioner herein says that the father of the petitioner herein died on 30.06.1994. In pursuance to to the said judgment, no decision was taken. Thereafter, the writ petition referred hereinabove bearing no. 11653 (S/S) of 2019 was filed challenging the termination order of the petitioner's father for the first time. Shri Prabhunath Singh while alive, never challenged the termination order. The Single Judge cannot be faulted for having dismissed the petition on the ground of delay and laches, especially, when there was a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in a similar matter to the same effect. We see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment in an intra Court appeal. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 24.7.2025 Lokesh Kumar [Manish Kumar, J.] [Rajan Roy, J.] LOKESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
The services of petitioner's father who as a Constable in the Provincial Armed Constabulary was terminated vide order dated 30.05.1973, contained as Annexure No. 5. This order was challenged for the first time by the petitioner by means of Writ Petition no. 11653 (S/S) of 2019 which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge Bench on 25.04.2019 on the ground of delay and laches, relying upon a decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court dated 12.10.20215 rendered in Civil Appeal No. 8604 of 2015; In-Re: State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Jyotsana, wherein a similar issue was involved. The said judgment dated 25.04.2019 reads as under:- "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents. The petitioner, a son of a terminated employee Late. Prabhu Nath Singh is before this Court praying for setting aside the notice dated 30.05.1973, a copy of which is annexure 5 to the writ petition by which the petitioner's father had been informed that after receipt of the notice, the services of the father of the petitioner would stand terminated. From a perusal of record, it does not come out that the father of the petitioner namely Sri Prabhu Nath Singh who was working as a temporary constable had ever challenged the said notice or the termination order. From a perusal of record, it comes out that the petitioner's father had been terminated for participating in police agitation on 30.05.1973. The present petition has been filed after a period of almost 46 years from the date of issue of the alleged notice. In order to make out a case, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a letter dated 18.07.2016, a copy of which is annexure 3 to the petition by which the Commandant of the 27th Bn, PAC, Sitapur has asked the Superintendent of Police, Balia to give any proof as to whether the father of the petitioner is alive or has died or any such details. Placing reliance on the said letter, it is contended that the present petition may be decided by quashing the impugned notice of termination dated 30.05.1973 as already indicated above.It is contended that similarly circumstanced employees i.e those constable who were terminated in the year 1973 have been extended benefit by the respondents. On the other hand, learned Standing counsel has also placed reliance on an order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 8604 of 2015, Inre; State of U.P and ors Vs. Jyotsana decided on 12.10.2015 by which in similar circumstances where an employee had also been terminated in the year 1973 on account of having participated in a police agitation had approached the High Court after 30 years of his termination and his petition had been entertained by the High Court, the Hon'ble Supreme Court by the aforesaid order was of the view that the writ petition deserved to be dismissed on the ground of having approached the Court after 30 years.Thus, it is contended the present petition having been filed after delay of 46 years also deserves to be dismissed. Having heard the learned counsels for the contesting parties and having perused the records what this Court finds is that the petitioner is approaching challenging the termination order of his father dated 30.05.1973. The father of the petitioner has also died on 30.06.1994. From a perusal of record it does not come out that the father of the petitioner ever challenged the impugned notice of termination meaning thereby that he was perfectly satisfied with the notice of termination that had been issued way back in the year 1973 rather had sat silent in the matter for a period of almost 21 years till his death in 1994. Accordingly, present petition having been filed by the son of the terminated employee after period of 46 years cannot be entertained by this Court more particularly keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jyostana (supra). Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, no case for interference is made out. The writ petition is dismissed." The Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon an order dated 24.10.1998 passed in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 33998 of 1998 filed by the wife and petitioner-son of the deceased which was disposed of with a direction to the authority concerned to decide the petitioner's representation. However, it is an admitted fact that no decision was taken in pursuance thereof. Ultimately, the petitioner and her mother filed a writ petition bearing Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 49500 of 2000 seeking compassionate appointment wherein an order was passed in the year 2000 directing the concerned officials to take a decision in the matter. Surprisingly enough, the termination order had never been set aside, but it was informed to the Court that in view of certain orders passed by the High Court and the Supreme Court, the father of the petitioner is deemed to have continued continued his service till his death on 07.01.1997. However, learned Counsel for the petitioner herein says that the father of the petitioner herein died on 30.06.1994. In pursuance to to the said judgment, no decision was taken. Thereafter, the writ petition referred hereinabove bearing no. 11653 (S/S) of 2019 was filed challenging the termination order of the petitioner's father for the first time. Shri Prabhunath Singh while alive, never challenged the termination order. The Single Judge cannot be faulted for having dismissed the petition on the ground of delay and laches, especially, when there was a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in a similar matter to the same effect. We see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment in an intra Court appeal. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 24.7.2025 Lokesh Kumar [Manish Kumar, J.] [Rajan Roy, J.] LOKESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench