UP govt officers care for court orders only when summoned: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court remarked on Monday that some officers of the State government care for the court orders only when their personal presence is directed [State of UP v Jai Singh and Others].

A Division Bench of Chief Arun Bhansali and Justice Jaspreet Singh also observed that hardly any appeals are filed by the State without delay.

“The attitude of the officers, in ignoring the orders passed by the Court till such time that notices in the contempt petition are issued, cannot be approved. On many occasions, despite issuance of notices in contempt petition, no action is taken and it is only when the directions are issued for personal presence that for the first time, the officers care for the orders passed by the Court. There are hardly any appeals which are filed without application seeking condonation of delay, which conduct on part of the appellants cannot be appreciated/ encouraged,” the Court said.

The Bench was dealing with an appeal challenging an order passed by a single-judge in April 2023 in a service matter. The appeal was filed after a delay of 345 days. Seeking condonation of the delay, the State said that the same had occurred on account of administrative formalities.

On analysing the record of the appeal, the Court found that the Standing Counsel had given his opinion in the case within a month after the single-judge’s order, but the State filed the appeal only a year later.

“On receipt of the opinion, claim has been made that on 11.10.2023, the State Government directed to make available the proposal of special appeal along with the legal opinion of the Chief Standing Counsel. As to why despite the opinion dated 16.05.2023 further opinion was required, that too after passage of over five months, has not been indicated and even that opinion of the Chief Standing Counsel was given after a passage of over one month, on 18.11.2023. Even when once the opinion dated 18.11.2023 was received, again after passage of two months on 23.01.2024, the matter was referred to the Director, Basic Education and, with leisure, the permission was granted on 13.03.2024. Even after grant of permission on 13.03.2024, the appeal has been filed on 01.05.2024,” the Court noted. 

The entire sequence of events clearly reflects a lackadaisical attitude towards compliance of Court directions, the Bench said.

When it asked about the procedure for implementation of directions or filing of appeals, the Court was told that whenever any order is passed against the State, the order along with the opinion is sent to the government department/officer in charge. However, the Court in the present case found a total collapse of the system.

“The indications made that on receipt of the judgment from the respondents, the ball was set rolling for seeking opinion, clearly reflects a total collapse of the system which, it is claimed, is in place,” it said.

The Court added that in the affidavit explaining the delay in filing appeal, there was no intention to reveal the sufficient cause and only a formality of indicating dates had been fulfilled.

“Sermons on the working of the Government have been indicated that it took time in completing the administrative formalities by following certain norms and procedure of ‘disciplined and systematic performance of official functions’ and that among the several factors on which depend the time consumed in process, there are ‘certain unavoidable and unspoken circumstances’,” it noted.

The Court further said that things had started moving in this case only after the respondents – in whose favour the single-judge had ruled - filed a contempt of court petition and the officers were served with notice.

Consequently, the Court dismissed the State appeal as barred by limitation. 

Advocate Anand Kumar Singh appeared for the State.

Advocates Girish Chandra Verma, Vinay Kumar Verma and Raman Kumar represented the respondents.

[Read Judgment]