STATE OF U.P. Vs. DEEP KUMAR BAJPAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present intra-Court appeal has been filed impugning the judgement and order dtd. 22/10/2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.1099 (SS) of 2013, whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition. It is held that appointment of the respondent-petitioner was under The U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (for short 'the Dying in Harness Rules') and the appointment was made on 12/6/1987 in anticipation of approval by the State Government. The State Government granted approval on 15/11/1990. Respondent-petitioner had continued in service without any break since his initial appointment on 12/6/1987 and, therefore, the order dtd. 18/5/2011 passed by the opposite parties treating him to be in regular appointment w.e.f. 12/4/1991 has been held to be bad and set aside.

(2.) This special appeal has been filed with delay of 586 days as on the date of filing. It is accompanied with an application for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit sworn by Sri Anil Kumar Jha, Additional Superintendent of Police (Establishment), DG, PHQ, Lucknow. It has been stated in the affidavit that office of the Police Head Quarters, Allahabad (Now Prayagraj) has been shifted to new building 'Signature Building' in Lucknow and the files and papers were transported from Prayagraj to Lucknow by trucks and in the course of transportation, the file of Writ Petition No.1099 (SS) of 2013 got lost and, therefore, on 18/2/2021 duplicate file was prepared and thereafter special appeal has been filed.

(3.) It has been stated that legal opinion was sought from the office of the learned Chief Standing Counsel vide letter dtd. 10/11/2020. Learned Chief Standing Counsel, High Court, Lucknow Bench vide his opinion dtd. 21/12/2020 stated "Thus, in view of the settled principle of law that the appointment under Rules, 1974 is a regular appointment, hence, the petitioner has to be considered as appointed on regular basis w.e.f. 12/6/1987 and accordingly, the judgement and order dtd. 22/10/2019 passed in Writ Petition No.1099 (SS) of 2013 seems to be justified, however, opinion from the Law Department may also be obtained on the subject matter."