# Ray Singh v. Chief Secretary, Govt. Of U.P. Lucknow & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 10 ILRA 412
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-10-14
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 15148 of 2025
- **Bench:** Vikas Budhwar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ray-singh-v-chief-secretary-govt-of-u-p-lucknow-ors-52664
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

C.S.C., Dilip Kumar Pandey

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether
the
Consolidation
Authorities
committed any error in rejecting the application
under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act,
1963 seeking condonation of delay of eighteen
years in moving a recall application against the
order dated 07.01.2002, and whether sufficient
cause had been explained so as to warrant
condonation of delay?

HEADNOTE
Indian Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5 -
Condonation of delay - Recall application -
Delay of eighteen years - Application for recall
of
order
dated
07.01.2002
moved
on
27.01.2020 - Orders passed by Consolidation
Authorities rejecting the application on the
ground of limitation - It is not the length of
delay which is material, but the sufficiency of
cause - Longer the delay, the heavier is the
onus to explain the sufficiency of cause -
Vague averments that petitioners came to know
of the order in January, 2020 - No real attempt
to explain delay of eighteen years - Delay not
to be condoned in a routine manner or as an act
of generosity - Explanation required from the
date limitation starts to run - Notification under
Section 52 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings
Act, 1953 published long ago - Consolidation
Authorities lose jurisdiction after publication of
Section 52 notification - Participation of
petitioner No.2 in proceedings earlier - No
explanation for stopping appearance - No
cogent explanation shown - No palpable error
found in orders passed by three Consolidation
Authorities - Writ petition devoid of merits.
(Paras 4-22)

HELD Application seeking condonation of delay
was moved on 27.01.2020 for recall of the order
dated 07.01.2002, after a delay of eighteen
years. There was hardly any cause explained
and only vague averments were made that the
petitioners became aware of the order in
January, 2020. The longer the delay, the heavier
is the onus to explain the sufficiency of cause,
and the delay is not to be condoned in a routine
manner or as an act of generosity. Notification
under Section 52 of the U.P. Consolidation of
Holdings Act, 1953 was published long ago, and
the petitioner No.2 had participated in the
proceedings earlier but later stopped appearing
without any explanation. In absence of cogent
explanation, the cause could not be treated to
be sufficient. Court did not find any palpable
error committed by the three Consolidation
Authorities in rejecting the application under
Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963.
Writ petition was dismissed at the

## Text

412 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
In Dinesh Kumar (supra), the following
has been observed: -

"9. As I have held earlier that the
resignation by the petitioner was not
intentional or voluntary and was obtained
by respondent under force and the
petitioner was not in a fit mental state when
resignation
was
obtained
from
him,
therefore, the petitioner is entitled for
reinstatement and entire arrears of salary."

21. Apart from the same, the first
proviso to Regulation 505 of the Police
Regulations also throws light that the
resignation can only be accepted by the
authority w.e.f. a date subsequent to the
date of expiry of the notice and not prior to
it, meaning thereby that two months notice
is to be given by the police personnel
seeking resignation. Moreover, Regulation
505 of the Police Regulation, also adds to
one another aspect that his resignation
cannot be accepted until and unless he fully
discharged the debt. Here, the Court finds
that the order dated 22.06.2022 passed by
the SSP Meerut, post acceptance of the
resignation on 20.01.2018 on 22.06.2022,
recovery is being sought to be made for
discharge
of
the
debt.
Thus,
even
otherwise, the resignation could not have
been accepted.

22. On a pointed query being raised to
Sri S.K. Pal, learned Addl. Chief Standing
Counsel, whether the judgment so sought to
be relied upon by the writ petitioner has
been subject matter of challenge in appeal,
set aside or stayed, the answer is in
negative.
Respectfully
following
the
mandate of law, as enunciated in the
aforesaid judgments, and applying them in
the facts and circumstances of the case, an
irresistible conclusion stands drawn, that
the resignation could not have been
accepted, particularly when it was not as
per the provisions contained under the
statute.

23. Accordingly, the writ petition is
allowed. The order dated 20.01.2018
passed by Inspector General of Police,
Meerut Region, second respondent, as well
as the order dated 22.06.2022 passed by the
fourth respondent, S.S.P. Meerut are set
aside. The writ petitioner shall be entitled
to all the consequential benefits, which are
admissible and permissible in law, within a
period of four months from the date of
production of certified copy of the order.
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 412
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

Writ A No. 15148 of 2025

Ray Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Chief Secretary, Govt. Of U.P. Lucknow &
Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Babu Ram Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Issue for consideration
 Whether
the
third
respondent,
Director
(Administration) Medical and Health, Services,
U.P. Swasthya Bhawan, Lucknow should be
directed to consider petitioner's claim for
transfer?

Headnotes
A. Service Law - The writ petition is being
disposed off granting liberty to the writ
petitioner
to
prefer
a
comprehensive
10 All. Ray Singh Vs. Chief Secretary, Govt. Of U.P. Lucknow & Ors.
413
representation along with the self attested copy
of the writ petition before the third respondent
who shall on the receipt of the same by
31.10.2025, proceed to decide the claim of the
petitioner strictly in accordance with law
within a period of two months from the
date of presentation of the certified
copy of the order. (Para 6)

Writ petition disposed off. (E-4)

List of Keywords
 Service, transfer.

Appearances for Parties
For Petitioner: Babu Ram Yadav
For Respondent: C.S.C.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vikas
Budhwar, J.)

1. Heard Sri Babu Ram Yadav,
learned counsel for the petitioner
and
Sri
Anoop
Kumar,
learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel,
who appears for State-respondents.

2. The case of the writ petitioner
is that the writ petitioenr was posted
as
Senior
Assistant,
E.H.R.M.S.,
Community
Health
Centre
,
Babhanjot, District Gonda and his
wife posted as Assistant Teacher in
District Etah which is 450 Kms.

3. Prayer in the present petition
is for a direction to the to the third
respondent,
Director
(Administration)
Medical
and
Health,
Services,
U.P.
Swasthya
Bhawan, Lucknow to consider his
claim for transfer from Gonda to
Etah.

4.
Learned
Additional
Chief
Standing Counsel submits that the
claim of the writ petitioner needs
examination at the first instance by
the third respondent.

5. To such a submission, learned
counsel for the petitioner has no
objection and he gracefully accepts
the same.

6. Considering the submissions
of the rival parties as well as stand
taken by them, the writ petition is
being disposed off granting liberty
to the writ petitioner to prefer a
comprehensive representation along
with the self-attested copy of the
writ
petition
before
the
third
respondent who shall on the receipt
of the same by 31.10.2025, proceed
to decide the claim of the petitioner
strictly
in
accordance
with
law
within a period of two months from
the date of presentation of the
certified copy of the order.

7. Needless to point out that the
writ
petition
has
been
decided
without seeking any response from
the respondents. Thus, passing of
this order may not be construed to an
expression that this Court has gone
into the merits of the case.

8.
With
the
aforesaid
observation, the writ petition is
disposed off.
414 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 414
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 15.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

Writ B No. 971 of 2025

Nanhak @ Nanhkey & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
D.D.C., Unnao & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Santosh Kumar Srivastava, Manish Kumar
Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Dilip Kumar Pandey

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether
the
Consolidation
Authorities
committed any error in rejecting the application
under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act,
1963 seeking condonation of delay of eighteen
years in moving a recall application against the
order dated 07.01.2002, and whether sufficient
cause had been explained so as to warrant
condonation of delay?

HEADNOTE
Indian Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5 -
Condonation of delay - Recall application -
Delay of eighteen years - Application for recall
of
order
dated
07.01.2002
moved
on
27.01.2020 - Orders passed by Consolidation
Authorities rejecting the application on the
ground of limitation - It is not the length of
delay which is material, but the sufficiency of
cause - Longer the delay, the heavier is the
onus to explain the sufficiency of cause -
Vague averments that petitioners came to know
of the order in January, 2020 - No real attempt
to explain delay of eighteen years - Delay not
to be condoned in a routine manner or as an act
of generosity - Explanation required from the
date limitation starts to run - Notification under
Section 52 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings
Act, 1953 published long ago - Consolidation
Authorities lose jurisdiction after publication of
Section 52 notification - Participation of
petitioner No.2 in proceedings earlier - No
explanation for stopping appearance - No
cogent explanation shown - No palpable error
found in orders passed by three Consolidation
Authorities - Writ petition devoid of merits.
(Paras 4-22)

HELD Application seeking condonation of delay
was moved on 27.01.2020 for recall of the order
dated 07.01.2002, after a delay of eighteen
years. There was hardly any cause explained
and only vague averments were made that the
petitioners became aware of the order in
January, 2020. The longer the delay, the heavier
is the onus to explain the sufficiency of cause,
and the delay is not to be condoned in a routine
manner or as an act of generosity. Notification
under Section 52 of the U.P. Consolidation of
Holdings Act, 1953 was published long ago, and
the petitioner No.2 had participated in the
proceedings earlier but later stopped appearing
without any explanation. In absence of cogent
explanation, the cause could not be treated to
be sufficient. Court did not find any palpable
error committed by the three Consolidation
Authorities in rejecting the application under
Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963.
Writ petition was dismissed at the admission
stage itself. (Paras 16-22)
Petition dismissed at admission stage. (E5)

CASE LAW CITED
Nand Kishore v. State of Punjab, (1995) 6 SCC
614;
N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy, (1998) 7
SCC 123;
Shivamma v. Karnataka Housing Board and
others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1969;
H. Guruswamy & Ors. v. A. Krishnaiah, 2025
SCC OnLine SC 54

List of Acts
Indian
Limitation
Act,
1963;
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.

15. List of Keywords
Condonation of delay - Section 5 - Recall
application - Sufficient cause - Length of