# Santosh Kumar v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2016) 7 ILRA 975
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-07-06
- **Bench:** Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/santosh-kumar-v-state-of-u-p-ors-44094
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

C.S.C.

Held -

Introduction: The petitioner, a collection Amin in Gautam Budh Nagar, filed a writ petition seeking a direction
for the District Collector (respondent no. 2) to decide his long-pending appeal.
Background of the Case: The petitioner was suspended in 2001 following disciplinary proceedings. A major
punishment was imposed, involving the permanent withholding of three annual increments and non-payment
of salary for the suspension period.
The Pending Appeal: Governed by the U.P. Collection Amin's Service Rules, 1974, the petitioner filed an
appeal on July 25, 2001, under Rule 11 of the U.P. Govt. Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999.
Grievance of Petitioner: The petitioner argued that despite numerous applications, his appeal has remained
pending for over 15 years, citing the case of Tilakdhari Ram vs. State of U.P. as precedent for timely disposal.
Legal Provisions (Rule 11): The Court examined Rule 11 of the 1999 Rules, noting that while it sets a 90-day
limit for filing an appeal, it is silent on the time limit for the authority to decide it.
Defining "Reasonable Time": The Court explored the legal definitions of "reasonable time" from The Law
Lexicon and Black's Law Dictionary, concluding it means as soon as circumstances permit to fulfill a duty.
Judicial Precedents on Delay: Referencing Supreme Court rulings (Mansaram and Bhatinda District Coop.), the
Court emphasized that statutory power must be exercised within a reasonable period, even if the statute
doesn't specify a deadline.
The Three-Month Benchmark: Citing Ashok Kumar Sahu and Tilakdhari Ram, the Court noted that three
months is generally considered a reasonable period for deciding such matters.
Constitutional Implications: The Court observed that administrative delays violate Article 14 (against
arbitrariness) and Article 21 (Right to Livelihood) of the Constitution.
Court's Observation on Alternative Remedy: Since the High Court often refuses writ petitions when an
alternative remedy (like an appeal) exists, the failure of authorities to decide those appeals causes undue
suffering to employees and their families.
Findings on the Current Case: The Court found the 15-year delay in the petitioner's case to be arbitrary,
illegal, and unjustifiable.
Mandatory Guidelines: The Court ruled that for major punishments, appeals should ideally be decided within
three months, and under no circumstances later than six months. If delayed beyond six months, reasons must
be recorded in writing.
Final Order: The Collector of Gautam Budh Nagar is directed to decide the appeal within three months.
Systemic Instruction: The Court directed the Principal Secretary (Revenue) to issue instructions to all
Commissioners and Collectors to follow these timelines for all pending appeals, revisions, and reviews.

Case Laws Cited:-

Tilakdhari Ram Vs. State of U.P. and others, Writ Petition No. 49235 of 2015 (decided on
1.9.2015).
Mansaram Vs. S.P. Pathak, (1984) 1 SCC 125.
State of Punjab Vs. Bhatinda District Coop. Milk Producers Union Ltd., (2007) 11 SCC 363.
Ashok Kumar Sahu Vs. Union of India, (2006) 6 SCC 704.
Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597.

## Text

7 All. Santosh Kumar Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.
975
in this case and also the reasons given by the Expert Committee in its decision held on 14.01.2013,
thus, run contrary to the reasons given by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Grah Rakshak,
Home Guards Welfare Association (supra) for issuing the direction to the State Governments,
who were party therein, in relation to entitlement of the daily allowance to the Home Guards.

27. It is also noteworthy that Hon'ble Supreme Court has negatived the prayer for
regularization of the services or grant of regular appointments to the Home Guards.

28. For the reasons given above and in view of the judgment of Hon'lble Supreme Court in
the case of Grah Rakshak, Home Guards Welfare Association (supra), this bunch of writ petitions
is disposed of with the following observations and directions:

 (A.) No relief to the petitioners for regularization of their services or grant of regular
appointments can be granted and hence, the prayer made in this respect in this bunch of writ
petitions is declined.

29. As a corollary, the prayer made by some of the petitioners for grant of salary in the
regular scale of pay is also rejected.

 B. The State Government is directed to consider the claim of the petitioners and other
Home Guards for grant of duty allowance at such rates, total of which, thirty days (a month) comes
to minimum of the pay to which a police constable in the State Government is entitled to in terms
of the directions issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Grah Rakshak, Home Guards
Welfare Association (supra). The State Government shall pass appropriate orders expeditiously,
say within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

30. However, there will be no order as to costs.
-----------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.07.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH BAGHEL, J.

Writ A No.- 57737 Of 2015

Santosh Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Shri Raj Kumar Shukla, Shri Anil Kumar Shukla
976 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Held -

Introduction: The petitioner, a collection Amin in Gautam Budh Nagar, filed a writ petition seeking a direction
for the District Collector (respondent no. 2) to decide his long-pending appeal.
Background of the Case: The petitioner was suspended in 2001 following disciplinary proceedings. A major
punishment was imposed, involving the permanent withholding of three annual increments and non-payment
of salary for the suspension period.
The Pending Appeal: Governed by the U.P. Collection Amin's Service Rules, 1974, the petitioner filed an
appeal on July 25, 2001, under Rule 11 of the U.P. Govt. Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999.
Grievance of Petitioner: The petitioner argued that despite numerous applications, his appeal has remained
pending for over 15 years, citing the case of Tilakdhari Ram vs. State of U.P. as precedent for timely disposal.
Legal Provisions (Rule 11): The Court examined Rule 11 of the 1999 Rules, noting that while it sets a 90-day
limit for filing an appeal, it is silent on the time limit for the authority to decide it.
Defining "Reasonable Time": The Court explored the legal definitions of "reasonable time" from The Law
Lexicon and Black's Law Dictionary, concluding it means as soon as circumstances permit to fulfill a duty.
Judicial Precedents on Delay: Referencing Supreme Court rulings (Mansaram and Bhatinda District Coop.), the
Court emphasized that statutory power must be exercised within a reasonable period, even if the statute
doesn't specify a deadline.
The Three-Month Benchmark: Citing Ashok Kumar Sahu and Tilakdhari Ram, the Court noted that three
months is generally considered a reasonable period for deciding such matters.
Constitutional Implications: The Court observed that administrative delays violate Article 14 (against
arbitrariness) and Article 21 (Right to Livelihood) of the Constitution.
Court's Observation on Alternative Remedy: Since the High Court often refuses writ petitions when an
alternative remedy (like an appeal) exists, the failure of authorities to decide those appeals causes undue
suffering to employees and their families.
Findings on the Current Case: The Court found the 15-year delay in the petitioner's case to be arbitrary,
illegal, and unjustifiable.
Mandatory Guidelines: The Court ruled that for major punishments, appeals should ideally be decided within
three months, and under no circumstances later than six months. If delayed beyond six months, reasons must
be recorded in writing.
Final Order: The Collector of Gautam Budh Nagar is directed to decide the appeal within three months.
Systemic Instruction: The Court directed the Principal Secretary (Revenue) to issue instructions to all
Commissioners and Collectors to follow these timelines for all pending appeals, revisions, and reviews.

Case Laws Cited:-

Tilakdhari Ram Vs. State of U.P. and others, Writ Petition No. 49235 of 2015 (decided on
1.9.2015).
Mansaram Vs. S.P. Pathak, (1984) 1 SCC 125.
State of Punjab Vs. Bhatinda District Coop. Milk Producers Union Ltd., (2007) 11 SCC 363.
Ashok Kumar Sahu Vs. Union of India, (2006) 6 SCC 704.
Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel, J.)
7 All. Santosh Kumar Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.
977
1. The petitioner is a collection Amin. He has instituted this writ proceeding for a direction
to the second respondent- Collector, district Gautam Budh Nagar to decide his appeal within a
stipulated time.

2. Essential facts are that petitioner was initially appointed as collection Amin in the year
1997. While he was posted at Dadri, district Gautam Budh Nagar, he was placed under suspension
on 10.1.2001 and disciplinary proceedings was initiated against him. Charge sheet was served upon
him on 10.2.2001 and after completion of the disciplinary proceedings, major punishment was
imposed on him of withholding three annual increments permanently and it was also provided that
he would not be paid any salary during the suspension period. Services of the petitioner are
governed under statutory Rule namely U.P. Collection Amin's Service Rules,1974. The petitioner
preferred an appeal under rule 11 of the U.P. Govt. Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules,1999,
before the second respondent on 25.7.2001.

3. Grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of several applications for disposal of his
appeal, the same is still pending before the second respondent.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no justifiable reason for keeping
his appeal pending for the last more than 15 years and he has placed reliance upon judgment of this
Court in the case of Tilakdhari Ram Vs. State of U.P. and others, ( Writ Petition No. 49235 of
2015, decided on 1.9.2015).

5. Learned standing counsel submits that this Court may issue direction to the District
Magistrate to decide the appeal within a reasonable time.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel. Perused the
record.

7. The petitioner claims that he has filed appeal on 25.7.2001. Rule 11 of the 1999 Rules
provides that against the order of disciplinary authority , appeal lies to the next higher authority.
Rule 11 is extracted hereinunder:

"11. Appeal: (1) Except the orders passed under these rules by the Governor, the
Government servant shall be entitled to appeal to the next higher authority from an order passed by
the disciplinary authority.

(2) The appeal shall be addressed and submitted to the appellate authority. A Govt.
Servant preferring an appeal shall do so in his own name. The appeal shall contain all material
statements and arguments relied upon by the appellant.

(3) The appeal shall not contain any intemperate language. Any appeal, which
contains such language may be liable to be summarily dismissed.
978 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(4) The appeal shall be preferred within 90 days from the date of communication of
impugned order. An appeal preferred after the said period shall be dismissed summarily.

8. Against the order of the appellate authority, Rule 13 of the 1999 Rules provides a
revision to the State Government and Rule 14 further provides review before the Governor.

9. From the reading of Rule 11, it is evident that its sub clause (4) provides 90 days'
limitation for filing of the appeal but it does not provide any time limit within which the appeal has
to be decided.

10. Although no time limit has been provided under Rule 11 to decide the appeal, it is a
trite that if no period is provided in the statute, then Tribunal/appellate authority/authority
concerned should take decision within a reasonable time. "Reasonable time" is not defined under
the Rules. P. Ramnatha Aiyar's "The Law Lexicon, 3rd Edition", defines reasonable time as under :

 "Reasonable time": That is a reasonable time that preserves to each party the
rights and advantages he possesses and protects each party from losses that he ought not to suffer.

 "Reasonable time" is defined to be so much time as is necessary, under the
circumstances, to do conveniently what the contract or duty requires should be done in a particular
case.

11. If it is proper to attempt any definition of the words "reasonable time" as applied to
completion of a contract, the distinction given by Chief Baron Pollock may be suggested, namely,
that a "reasonable time" means as soon as circumstances will permit.

12. In determining what is reasonable time or an unreasonable time, regard is to be had to
the nature of the instrument, the usage of trade or business, if any, with respect to such instruments,
and the fact of the particular case.

13. A reasonable time, looking at all the circumstances of the case; a reasonable time under
ordinary circumstances; as soon as circumstances will permit; so much time as is necessary under
the circumstances, conveniently to do what the contract requires should be done; some more
protracted space than "directly"; such length of time as may fairly, and properly and reasonable be
allowed or required, having regard to the nature of the act or duty and to the attending
circumstances; all these convey more or less the same idea.

14. Black's law dictionary, defines "reasonable time" as under:

1.Contracts. The time needed to do what a contract requires to be done, based on
subjective circumstances. If the contracting parties do not fix a time for performance, the law will
usu. Presume a reasonable time. 2. Commercial law. The time during which the UCC permits a
party to accept an offer, inspect goods, and the like.
7 All. Santosh Kumar Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.
979
15. In the case of Mansaram Vs. S.P. Pathak, (1984) 1 SCC 125, the Supreme Court held
that when the power is conferred to effectuate a purpose, it has to be exercised in a reasonable
manner and reasonable time. The Court held as follows :

"But when the power is conferred to effectuate a purpose, it has to be exercised in
a reasonable manner. Exercise of power in a reasonable manner inheres the concept of its exercise
within a reasonable time. Undoubtedly, no limitation is prescribed in this behalf but one would
stand aghast that a landlord to some extent in pari delicto could turn the tables against the person
who was in possession for 22 years as a tenant."

16. Similar view has been taken in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Bhatinda District
Coop. Milk Producers Union Ltd., 2007 11 SCC 363, wherein the Supreme Court held that when
there is no period of limitation prescribed under the Statute, the authority must exercise its
jurisdiction within a reasonable time. It would depend upon the nature of the Statute,
rights,,liabilities and other relevant factors. Relevant part of the aforesaid judgment reads as
follows:

17. A bare reading of Section 21 of the Act would reveal that although no period of
limitation has been prescribed therefor, the same would not mean that the suo motu power can be
exercised at any time.

18. It is trite that if no period of limitation has been prescribed, statutory authority
must exercise its jurisdiction within a reasonable period. What,however, shall be the reasonable
period would depend upon the nature of the Statute, rights and liabilities thereunder and other
relevant factors."

17. Word "reasonable time" has been considered in various judgments of the Supreme
Court and it depends upon facts of the each case.

18. The Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Sahu v. Union of India,(2006) 6
SCC 704 at page 715, has observed in paragraph no. 32 of the said decision as under:-

"32. We may observe that an appropriate order should be passed within a
reasonable period. Normally, three months' notice is required to be given as the said period is
considered to be reasonable and it is expected that a decision would be taken within the said period.
But the rule is not an inflexible one. It would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each
case."

19. This Court in the case of Tilakdhari Ram ( supra ) while dealing with identical
situation, has held that whenever there is no reasonable time fixed in the statutory rules to decide
the appeal/revision/review, the reasonable time should be treated to be three months and in case the
authority concerned fails to dispose of appeal/revision/review within the said period from the date
of its filing, he should record brief reasons for the delay. Relevant part of the order reads thus :
980 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

 "wherever there is no reasonable time fixed in the statutory rules of the State Government
the reasonable period as held by the Supreme Court in the Ashok Kumar Sahu's case (supra) should
be treated to be three months and in case the officer concerned fails to dispose of the appeal,
revision or review within three months of the date of filing of the same the reasons should be
recorded by the concerned."

20. It is pertinent to mention here that State Government in exercise of the powers
conferred by proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution, has framed U.P. Govt. Servant (Discipline and
Appeal) Rules,1999, which are applicable to all Govt. Servants except officers and servants of the
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

21. As can be seen from the reading of Rule 11 that no time limit has been provided for
disposal of the appeal. In some of the Service Regulations of Govt. Corporations, period has been
provided i.e. ordinarily three months, but the 1999 Rules is silent about the period for disposal of
the appeal.

22. It is common experience that a large number of petitions are filed in this Court for only
prayer that direction be issued to the Tribunal/Administrative authority/Quasi judicial authority to
decide the appeal which is provided under statute/regulations /rules, within a stipulated period of
time. Keeping in view huge volume of work of this Court, there is a need to lay down
authoritatively a reasonable time, under which all statutory appeals/revision may be decided.

23. In addition to the above, the aggrieved govt. Servant against whom punishment has
been awarded, particularly a major punishment, is required to file appeal as this Court ordinarily do
not entertain the writ petition if the aggrieved Govt. Servant approaches this Court bypassing the
statutory appeal, on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. In case the appeal is not
decided within a reasonable period, not only the Govt. Servant but his whole family is made to
suffer especially in case of the major punishment. If the appeal remains pending for a long time, the
Govt. Servant and his family is made to suffer without their any fault. The Supreme Court in long
line of decisions has established the law that livelihood is a fundamental right and it is protected
under Art. 21 of the Constitution. Thus, keeping the appeal/revision pending for unreasonable
period violates fundamental right of the employee.

24. Concept of arbitrariness has been dealt with by the Supreme Court in the case of
Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India, AIR1978 SC 597, wherein Constitution Bench of Seven
Judges has held that any action on the part of the executive which is unreasonable,is arbitrary and
violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. This decision has been followed by the Supreme Court in
unbroken line of decisions.

25. Having regard to the law laid down above, it is evident that if appeal/revision is not
decided for a long time, it is violative of Art. 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
7 All. Sushil Kumar Vs Kanvar Sain Garg
981
26. Reverting to the case in hand, the appeal of the petitioner is pending for the last 15
years. There can not be a justification for keeping the appeal/revision pending for such inordinate
period. Even if the appellant/revisionist is not cooperating or delaying the matter, the authority
should after giving no more opportunity, should decide the matter ex-parte.

27. As a sequel to above, I find that action of the respondents in keeping the petitioner's
appeal pending for the last 15 years, is arbitrary and illegal.

28. In view of the above, I hold that in the matter of major punishment, the appellate
authority should make endeavour to decide the appeal within a reasonable time i.e. three months
but it should not be later than six months. In case there is delay beyond six months, the authority
concerned would record reasons for the delay occurred.

29. Accordingly a direction is issued upon the second respondent no. 2- Collector, district
Gautam Budh Nagar to decide the petitioner's appeal expeditiously but not later than three months
from the date of communication of the order.

30. With the above direction, the writ petition stands finally disposed of.

31. The office is directed to send a copy of this order to first respondent- Principal
Secretary (Revenue), to issue necessary directions to all the appellate authorities/revisional
authorities (Commissioners and Collectors) to decide the appeals/revisions/review in the light of
judgments of Supreme Court, referred hereinabove.
-----------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.07.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No.- 4227 Of 2016

Sushil Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
Kanvar Sain Garg ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Abhijeet Mukherji, Sri Anil Kumar Jaiswal

HEADNOTE:
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 115 (U.P. Amendment) - Revision - Pecuniary jurisdiction
- Amendment of plaint - Valuation exceeding Rs.5,00,000/- - Revision lies before High Court
and not District Judge - Government notification enhancing appellate jurisdiction does not