# Secretary, I.C.A.R. Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare & Anr v. Ravinder Kumar Tyagi

- **Citation:** (2024) 2 ILRA 313
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-01-02
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 21298 of 2023
- **Bench:** Vivek Kumar Birla, Donadi Ramesh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/secretary-i-c-a-r-ministry-of-agriculture-and-farmers-welfare-anr-v-ravinder-51421
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Service law - Constitution of India -
Article 14 - Writ - Maintainability -
Latches of 638 days - Petitioner, ICAR,
explained the delay saying that 'due to
long departmental procedure the matter
has been sent to ICAR head Quarter and
after concurrence of Head Quarter it has
been decided to challenge the matter' -
High Court found the explanation of
latches unsatisfactory - Bherulal's case
relied upon. (Para 4 and 8)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)

List of Cases Cited :-

## Text

2 All. The Secretary, I.C.A.R. Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare & Anr. Vs.
 Ravinder Kumar Tyagi
313

22. Apparently, the order passed by
the District Magistrate is absolutely without
jurisdiction and he could not have set aside
the
promotion
order
made
in
the
petitioner's favour by the Chairman of the
Nagar Palika Parishad in the exercise of his
power to appoint, promote etc. employees
of the Nagar Palika Parishad.

23. This Court is not inclined to go
into the validity of the petitioner's
promotion, as that is in no way under
challenge here. It would be open to the fifth
respondent to seek his remedies as advised.

24. In the result, this petition succeeds
and is allowed. The impugned order dated
24.05.2023
passed
by
the
District
Magistrate, Sonbhadra is hereby quashed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 313
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.01.2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J.
THE HON'BLE DONADI RAMESH, J.

Writ A No. 21298 of 2023

The
Secretary,
I.C.A.R.
Ministry
of
Agriculture and Farmers Welfare & Anr.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
Ravinder Kumar Tyagi ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Narendra Pratap Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:

A. Service law - Constitution of India -
Article 14 - Writ - Maintainability -
Latches of 638 days - Petitioner, ICAR,
explained the delay saying that 'due to
long departmental procedure the matter
has been sent to ICAR head Quarter and
after concurrence of Head Quarter it has
been decided to challenge the matter' -
High Court found the explanation of
latches unsatisfactory - Bherulal's case
relied upon. (Para 4 and 8)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)

List of Cases Cited :-

1. Madhya Pradesh & ors.Vs Bherulal; 2020 (10)
SCC 654

2. St. of Madhya Pradesh & anr. Vs Chaitram
Maywade; 2020 (10) SCC 654

3. Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao Vs Reddy
Sridevi & ors.; 2021 SCC Online (SC) 1260

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,
J.
&
Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh, J.)

1. Heard Sri Narendra Pratap
Singh,
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners.

2. Present petition has been filed
for quashing the impugned order dated
17.12.2021
passed
in
Original
Application No. 330/1069 of 2021
(Ravinder Kumar Tyagi vs. UOI and
others).

3. The Stamp Reporter has reported
latches of 638 days on the date of reporting
of the present petition on 15.12.2023.
Subsequently, present petition was filed on
18.12.2023.

4. On a pointed query learned counsel
for the petitioners submits that latches have
been explained in paragraph 15 of the
petition, therefore, delay in challenging the
impugned order dated 27.12.2021 is not
intentional and is liable to be quashed.
314 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Paragraph 15 of the petition is quoted as
under:-

"15.
That
due
to
long
departmental procedure the matter has been
sent to ICAR head Quarter and after
concurrence of Head Quarter it has been
decided to challenge the matter on the
ground of delay and latches and all these
proceedings have taken enough time and
there is some delay in challenging the
impugned order dated 17.12.2021 which is
not intentional and the same is bonafide
and therefore the Hon'ble High Court may
condone the delay and writ petition may be
heard on merits condoning the delay
otherwise the petitioners department shall
suffer irreparable loss and injury."

5. We are not satisfied with the
explanation so offered by the petitioner.

6. In the case of State of Madhya
Pradesh and others vs. Bherulal 2020
(10) SCC 654, the Special Leave Petition
was filed with a delay of 663 days. The
Hon'ble Apex Court, while considering the
application seeking condonation of delay,
observed in paragraphs 3, 4, 5 and 6 as
under:-

"3. No doubt, some leeway is
given for the Government inefficiencies but
the sad part is that the authorities keep on
relying on judicial pronouncements for a
period of time when technology had not
advanced and a greater leeway was given to
the
Government
(Collector,
Land
Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr vs. Mst.
Katiji & Ors. (1987) 2 SCC 107). This
position is more than elucidated by the
judgment of this Court in Office of the
Chief Post Master General & Ors. v. Living
Media India Ltd. & Anr. (2012) 3 SCC 563
where the Court observed as under:

"27. It is not in dispute that the
person(s) concerned were well aware or
conversant
with
the
issues
involved
including
the
prescribed
period
of
limitation for taking up the matter by way
of filing a special leave petition in this
Court. They cannot claim that they have a
separate period of limitation when the
Department was possessed with competent
persons familiar with court proceedings. In
the absence of plausible and acceptable
explanation, we are posing a question why
the delay is to be condoned mechanically
merely because the Government or a wing
of the Government is a party before us.

28. Though we are conscious of
the fact that in a matter of condonation of
delay when there was no gross negligence
or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide, a
liberal concession has to be adopted to
advance substantial justice, we are of the
view that in the facts and circumstances,
the Department cannot take advantage of
various earlier decisions. The claim on
account of impersonal machinery and
inherited bureaucratic methodology of
making several notes cannot be accepted in
view of the modern technologies being
used and available. The law of limitation
undoubtedly binds everybody including the
Government.

29. In our view, it is the right time
to inform all the government bodies, their
agencies and instrumentalities that unless
they have reasonable and acceptable
explanation for the delay and there was
bonafide effort, there is no need to accept
the usual explanation that the file was kept
pending for several months/years due to
considerable degree of procedural red- tape
in
the
process.
The
government
departments are under a special obligation
to ensure that they perform their duties with
diligence and commitment. Condonation of
delay is an exception and should not be
2 All. The Secretary, I.C.A.R. Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare & Anr. Vs.
 Ravinder Kumar Tyagi
315
used
as
an
anticipated
benefit
for
government departments. The law shelters
everyone under the same light and should
not be swirled for the benefit of a few.

30. Considering the fact that there
was no proper explanation offered by the
Department
for
the
delay
except
mentioning of various dates, according to
us, the Department has miserably failed to
give any acceptable and cogent reasons
sufficient to condone such a huge delay."

Eight years hence the judgment is
still unheeded!

4. A reading of the aforesaid
application shows that the reason for such
an inordinate delay is stated to be only "due
to unavailability of the documents and the
process of arranging the documents". In
paragraph 4 a reference has been made to
"bureaucratic
process
works,
it
is
inadvertent that delay occurs".

5. A preposterous proposition is
sought to be propounded that if there is
some merit in the case, the period of delay
is to be given a go-by. If a case is good on
merits, it will succeed in any case. It is
really a bar of limitation which can even
shut out good cases. This does not, of
course, take away the jurisdiction of the
Court in an appropriate case to condone the
delay.

6. We are also of the view that the
aforesaid approach is being adopted in
what we have categorized earlier as
"certificate cases". The object appears to be
to obtain a certificate of dismissal from the
Supreme Court to put a quietus to the issue
and thus, say that nothing could be done
because the highest Court has dismissed the
appeal. It is to complete this formality and
save the skin of officers who may be at
default that such a process is followed. We
have on earlier occasions also strongly
deprecated such a practice and process.
There seems to be no improvement. The
purpose of coming to this Court is not to
obtain
such
certificates
and
if
the
Government suffers losses, it is time when
the concerned officer responsible for the
same bears the consequences. The irony is
that in none of the cases any action is taken
against the officers, who sit on the files and
do nothing. It is presumed that this Court
will condone the delay and even in making
submissions, straight away counsels appear
to address on merits without referring even
to the aspect of limitation as happened in
this case till we pointed out to the counsel
that he must first address us on the question
of limitation."
(emphasis supplied)

7. In the case of State of Madhya
Pradesh and another vs. Chaitram
Maywade 2020 (10) SCC 654 Hon'ble
Apex Court deprecated practice of filing
petitions with such huge delay and has
observed that these kinds of cases are only
'certificate cases' to obtain a certificate of
dismissal from the Supreme Court to put a
quietus to the issue. It was also observed
that the costs imposed are to be recovered
from the officer(s) responsible for the delay
in filing and sitting on the files. Paragraph
3 and 4 of the Chaitram (supra) are quote as
under:-

"3. We consider it appropriate to
direct the Chief Secretary of the State of
Madhya Pradesh to look into the aspect of
revamping the legal Department as it
appears that the Department is unable to
file appeals within any reasonable period of
time much less within limitation. These
kinds of excuses, as already recorded in the
aforesaid order, are no more admissible in
view of the judgment in Office of the Chief
Post Master General & Ors. v. Living
Media India Ltd. & Anr. ? (2012) 3 SCC
563.
316 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

4. We have also expressed our
concern that these kinds of the cases are
only "certificate cases" to obtain a certificate of
dismissal from the Supreme Court to put a
quietus to the issue. The object is to save the skin
of officers who may be in default. We have also
recorded the irony of the situation where no
action is taken against the officers who sit on
these files and do nothing."
(emphasis supplied)

8. In the case of Majji Sannemma @
Sanyasirao vs. Reddy Sridevi and others 2021
SCC Online (SC) 1260 the Hon'ble Apex Court
quashed the order passed by the High Court,
where High Court has condoned delay of 1011
days.

9. In view of the law as discussed above,
we find that the explanation so offered in
paragraph 15 of the petition quoted above is not
satisfactory and accordingly present petition
stands dismissed on the ground of latches.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 316
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.12.2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Writ A No. 31827 of 2014

Om Prakash Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Deepak K. Jaiswal, Sri Bhaiya Lal Yadav,
Sri Vijay Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Service Law - UP Junior High School
(Payment of Salaries of Teachers and
Other
Employees)
Act,
1978
-
UP
Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High
Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of
Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978 - Rules
9(A)(ii) and 10(5)(i)(a) - Payment of
salary - Post of Assistant Teacher -
Petitioner was duly selected, appointed
and given joining in 1996 - Appointment
was also approved twice - However, in
counter
affidavit,
the
District
Basic
Education Officer took the stand that
petitioner's
appointment
was
made
against
a
non-sanctioned
post
-
Permissibility - Held, the petitioner was
appointed
in
accordance
with
rules
against a sanctioned post way back in the
year 1996. The strength of teachers, at
the time, was obviously determined by the
District
Basic
Education
Officer
in
accordance
with
the
norms
then
prescribed,
before
he
permitted
the
vacancy to be advertised. The petitioner's
selection was scrutinised at all levels and
it is difficult to accept that the petitioner
would have been selected or appointed
against a non-sanctioned post - Right or
benefits already earned under the existing
rules
cannot
be
withdrawn
by
a
retrospective amendment of the Rules -
Yogendra Shrivastava's case relied upon.
(Para 26, 28, 30 and 34)

Writ petition allowed. (E-1)

List of Cases Cited :-

1. St. of M. P. & ors.Vs Yogendra Shrivastava;
(2010) 12 SCC 538

2. T.R. Kapur & ors.Vs St. of Har. & ors.; 1986
Supp SCC 584

(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

The petitioner, Om Prakash Yadav,
appears to be a qualified and duly selected
Assistant Teacher, appointed with the Raja
Ram Sahab Lal Kisan Adarsh Junior High
School, Saraibeeka, Jaunpur way back on
04.09.1996, and, yet, for some mysterious
reason,
the
respondent-District
Basic
Education Officer, Jaunpur says that he is