# Ram Newas Singh & Ors v. The Dy. Director Of Consolidation, Gorakhpur & Ors

- **Citation:** (2016) 4 ILRA 145
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-02-16
- **Bench:** Ran Vijai Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-newas-singh-ors-v-the-dy-director-of-consolidation-gorakhpur-ors-43558
- **Pages:** 5

## Text

4 All. Ram Newas Singh & Ors. Vs The Dy. Director Of Consolidation, Gorakhpur & Ors.
145

"Reasons for denying the relief of reinstatement in such cases are obvious. It is trite law that when
the termination is found to be illegal because of non-payment of retrenchment compensation and notice pay
as mandatorily required under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, even after reinstatement, it is
always open to the management to terminate the services of that employee by paying him the retrenchment
compensation. Since such a workman was working on daily wage basis and even after he is reinstated, he has
no right to seek regularization (See: State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1). Thus when he cannot
claim regularization and he has no right to continue even as a daily wage worker, no useful purpose is going
to be served in reinstating such a workman and he can be given monetary compensation by the Court itself
inasmuch as if he is terminated again after reinstatement, he would receive monetary compensation only in
the form of retrenchment compensation and notice pay. In such a situation, giving the relief of reinstatement,
that too after a long gap, would not serve any purpose."

13. Applying the aforsaid principles, I would like to discuss the present. A perusal of the record reveals
and as per own saying of the private respondent no. 3 that he had worked only for three years when his
services were dispensed with on 31.10.1973. Thus the termination took place more than 40 years ago. The
Award was passed in favour of the private respondent on 11.8.1997 however, the same was stayed by this
Court vide order dated 17.9.1999. Later on, vide order dated 15.5.2007, this Court directed for compliance of
provisins of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, and in compliance thereof a sum of Rs. 14736/- was
paid towards wages from 17.9.1999 to 31.7.2007 in the year 20007. Thereafter meager amount was paid in
the year 2008,2009,2010. However, the fact remains that there is no direct evidence for working of the
private respondent no.3. As averred above, the contesting respondent would be near about 60 years of age
and was allegedly removed in the year 1973 and since then more than 40 long years have elapsed and as
such, in my opinion, ends of justice would be met by granting compensation in lieu of reinstatement.

14. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed in part. The impugned Award dated 11.8.1997 said
to be published on 9.1.1998 is modified by awarding compensation of Rs. Two lacs, which shall be paid to
private respondent no.3 within two months failing which the respondent shall be entitled to interest at the rate
of 12% per annum from the date of judgment.
----------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.02.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAN VIJAI SINGH, J.

Writ B No.- 4830 Of 2006

Ram Newas Singh & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
The Dy. Director Of Consolidation, Gorakhpur & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for Petitioners
S.S. Tripathi, A.P. Tewari
146 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for Respondents
C.S.C., Rajni Kant Chaube

The present petition has been filed against the order dated dated 24.7.2002 passed by the Settlement Officer
Consolidation ( in short SOC) and the order dated 4.1.2005 passed by the Deputy Director Consolidation (in
short DDC). The impugned orders have been assailed on two grounds: (i) The SOC has erred in condoning
the delay without recording satisfaction that the delay was satisfactorily explained. (ii) The DDC has also erred
in dismissing the revision holding it to be not maintainable. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the
decision of this Court in Paras Nath vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Varanasi and others
(2008(104) RD 516) wherein it has been held that in both the cases while condoning the delay or refusing to
condone the delay a revision would lie as the orders either of condonation of delay or refusal to condone the
delay does not fall in the ambit of an interlocutory order. Legal position regarding the maintainability of
Revision cannot be doubted but question remains that once the delay has been condoned by the SOC in filing
the appeal, whether it had worth to be interfered with under the revisional jurisdiction or not.

The Apex Court in State of Bihar & others Vs. Kameshwar Prasad Singh & another, JT 2000 (5) 389
has observed as under:

Once the court accepts the explanation as sufficient, it is the result of positive exercise of discretion and
normally the superior court should not disturb such finding, much less in revisional jurisdiction, unless the
exercise of discretion was on wholly untenable grounds or arbitrary or perverse.

Therefore, court held that the impugned order dated 4.1.2005 passed by the DDC in Revision No. 774 is
hereby quashed. So far order passed by SOC dated 24.7.2002 is concerned I do not find any error in the
same considering the discussions made herein above.

The writ petition is allowed in part

List of Cases Cited

1. Sukhjindar Jeet Kaur vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Rampur and others (2003 RD 448)

2. Paras Nath vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Varanasi and others (2008(104) RD 516)

3. Bodda vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Banda and others (2013(5)ADJ 248)

4. Birbal Singh vs. Addl. Commissioner and 5 others (2014(4) ADJ 674)

5. State of Bihar & others Vs. Kameshwar Prasad Singh & another, JT 2000 (5) 389

6. Noharlal Verma Vs. District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd. Jagdalpur, 2008 14 SCC 445,

7. V.M. Salgaocara and Bros. Vs. Board of Trustees of Port of Mormugao and Another 2005 (4) SCC 613,

8. Sneh Gupta Vs. Devi Sarup and Others 2009 (6) SCC 194 and

9. Ragho singh Vs.Mohan Singh 2001 (9) SCC 717,

10. Jeet Narain and Another Vs. Govind Prasad and Others (2010) 3 ADJ SC 470
4 All. Ram Newas Singh & Ors. Vs The Dy. Director Of Consolidation, Gorakhpur & Ors.
147
11. Smt. Prem Wati and Another Vs. Smt. Munni Devi alias Minakshi and Another 2009 (2) AWC 1099,

12. Ramesh and another Vs. Collector Jalaun and others, 2013 (7) ADJ 376,

13. Mukesh and another Vs. Additional D.M. (F & R) Mathura and others 2015 (8) ADJ 73

14. Paramveer vs. State of U.P. & 2 others (2016 (115)ALR 376

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ran Vijai Singh, J.)

1. Heard Sri A.P.Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel
appearing for the State-respondents and Sri R.K.Chaubey, learned counsel for the respondent nos.3
and 4.

2. Through this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari
quashing the order dated 24.7.2002 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation ( in short SOC)
and the order dated 4.1.2005 passed by the Deputy Director Consolidation (in short DDC). Vide
order dated 24.7.2002 the SOC has condoned the delay in filing the appeal and fixed date for
hearing of the appeal whereas by the subsequent order dated 4.1.2005 the DDC has dismissed the
revision holding it to be not maintainable against the order dated 24.7.2002.

3. The impugned orders have been assailed on two grounds: (i) The SOC has erred in
condoning the delay without recording satisfaction that the delay was satisfactorily explained. (ii)
The DDC has also erred in dismissing the revision holding it to be not maintainable.

4. Sri Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondent submits that on merit the matter has
already been adjudicated and the petitioners' right has also been determined and untouched upto the
High Court and it was merely an application for recording the names of the respondents in the
revenue record, therefore, the impugned orders should not be interfered with under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. First of all
I want to consider the merit of the order dated 4.1.2005 passed by the DDC in Revision No. 774
(Ram Niwas Singh and others vs. the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gorakhpur and others). It
is not in dispute that the Revision was filed against the order dated 24.7.2002 by which the delay
has been condoned in filing the appeal and the DDC has dismissed the revision holding it to be not
maintainable taking note of the decision of this Court in Sukhjindar Jeet Kaur vs. Deputy
Director of Consolidation, Rampur and others (2003 RD 448).

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the law laid down in Sukhjinder Jeet Kaur
(supra) now does not hold good law in view of the subsequent decision of this Court in Paras Nath
vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Varanasi and others (2008(104) RD 516) wherein it has
been held that in both the cases while condoning the delay or refusing to condone the delay a
revision would lie as the orders either of condonation of delay or refusal to condone the delay does
148 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
not fall in the ambit of an interlocutory order and the DDC will have jurisdiction under section 48
of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 to entertain the Revision.

7. In Bodda vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Banda and others (2013(5)ADJ 248)
and Birbal Singh vs. Addl. Commissioner and 5 others (2014(4) ADJ 674) also the same view
has been taken by this Court.

8. In view of the aforesaid legal position the maintainability of Revision cannot be doubted but
question remains that once the delay has been condoned by the SOC in filing the appeal, whether it
had worth to be interfered with under the revisional jurisdiction or not. The Apex Court in State of
Bihar & others Vs. Kameshwar Prasad Singh & another, JT 2000 (5) 389 has observed as
under:

"Once the court accepts the explanation as sufficient, it is the result of positive exercise of
discretion and normally the superior court should not disturb such finding, much less in revisional
jurisdiction, unless the exercise of discretion was on wholly untenable grounds or arbitrary or
perverse. But it is a different matter when the first court refuses to condone the delay. In such
cases, the superior court would be free to consider the cause shown for the delay afresh and it is
open to such superior court to come to its own finding even untrammelled by the conclusion of the
lower court."

9. Otherwise also the law of limitation is not meant to take away the right of appeal. The
Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court in number of cases, has held that while considering the
delay condonation application, the court must be sympathetic and it has to see the merit of the case
also as the law of limitation is not meant to take away the right of Appeal. The courts are meant for
imparting justice and not to scuttle the justice on technicalities. The length of delay is also not very
much material if there is a substance on merit. It has also been held that if there has been some
slackness on the part of applicant and that has caused inconvenience to the other side that can be
compensated in terms of money instead of closing the door of justice for ever.

10. Reference may be had to the judgments of the Apex Court as well as this Court in State of
Bihar and others Vs. Kameshwar Prasad Singh and others JT 2000 (5) 389, Noharlal Verma
Vs. District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd. Jagdalpur, 2008 14 SCC 445, V.M. Salgaocara
and Bros. Vs. Board of Trustees of Port of Mormugao and Another 2005 (4) SCC 613, Sneh
Gupta Vs. Devi Sarup and Others 2009 (6) SCC 194 and Ragho singh Vs. Mohan Singh 2001
(9) SCC 717, Jeet Narain and Another Vs. Govind Prasad and Others (2010) 3 ADJ SC 470 as
well as this Court in Smt. Prem Wati and Another Vs. Smt. Munni Devi alias Minakshi and
Another 2009 (2) AWC 1099, Ramesh and another Vs. Collector Jalaun and others, 2013 (7)
ADJ 376, Mukesh and another Vs. Additional D.M. (F & R) Mathura and others 2015 (8)
ADJ 73 and Paramveer vs. State of U.P. & 2 others (2016 (115)ALR 376.

11. In view of the forgoing discussion, the impugned order dated 4.1.2005 passed by the DDC
in Revision No. 774 (Ram Niwas Singh and others vs. the Deputy Director of Consolidation,
4 All. Union Of India & Ors. Vs Armed Forces Tribunal Regional Bench & Ors.
149
Gorakhpur and others) is hereby quashed. So far order passed by SOC dated 24.7.2002 is
concerned I do not find any error in the same considering the discussions made herein above.

12. The writ petition is allowed in part as discussed above.

13. However, the SOC is directed to decide the pending appeal expeditiously not later than six
months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order of this Court in accordance with
law after hearing all concerned.
----------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 25.04.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.

Service Single No.- 5131 Of 2016

Union Of India & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Armed Forces Tribunal Regional Bench & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for Petitioners:
Alok Mathur

The challenge is on the ground that the respondent was a trainee in the Indian Military Academy and,
therefore, the dispute raised in the original application was not amenable to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in
view of the definition of "Service Matters" contained in Section 3 (o) of the Act of 2007.

The first and foremost question which arises for consideration in this writ petition is its maintainability under
Article 226 of the Constitution considering the provisions contained in Section 30 of the Act of 2007.

A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India involving a question of jurisdiction would be
maintainable, irrespective of availability of statutory remedy, but against the aforesaid backdrop and in view
of dictum of the Supreme Court in Srikant Sharma's case there being a statutory remedy available to the
petitioners under Section 30 read with Section 31 of the Act of 2007, which has not been availed, it would not
be desirable for this High Court under Article 226 of the constitution to entertain this writ petition as it will
lead to an anomalous situation

The writ petition is dismissed.

List of Cases Cited:

1. Union of India v. P.S. Gill 2012(4) SCC 413
2. Mahesh Chand v. Union of India 2014(6) Allahabad Law Journal 435
3. Ravindra Nath Tripathi v. Union of India
4. Col. Ad. Gargolkar v. Union of India