Top
Top Stories

Delay Of More Than 1 Year In Uploading Of Judgment After Pronouncement: SC Calls Upon Patna HC Registrar General To Explain [Read Order]

Mehal Jain
19 Oct 2020 12:11 PM GMT
Delay Of More Than 1 Year In Uploading Of Judgment After Pronouncement: SC Calls Upon Patna HC Registrar General To Explain [Read Order]
x

Noting the submission that the impugned judgment was pronounced on 24th January, 2018 but was uploaded on the Patna High Court website on 1st May, 2019, the Supreme Court on Thursday called upon the Registrar General of the High Court to submit a report on whether the said facts are correct, explaining the reasons for the same."There is an inordinate delay of 733 days as stated by the...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
599+GST
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

Noting the submission that the impugned judgment was pronounced on 24th January, 2018 but was uploaded on the Patna High Court website on 1st May, 2019, the Supreme Court on Thursday called upon the Registrar General of the High Court to submit a report on whether the said facts are correct, explaining the reasons for the same.

"There is an inordinate delay of 733 days as stated by the learned counsel (not 333 days as set out in the application and the office report)", observed the bench of Justices S. K. Kaul and Dinesh Maheshwari, stating that this aspect be verified by the Registry.

"We find from the averments made in paragraph 4 of the application that the impugned judgment was pronounced on 24th January, 2018 but was uploaded on the website on 1st May, 2019. We call upon the Registrar General of the Patna High Court to submit the report to us whether the aforesaid facts are correct and the reasons for the same", ordered the division bench.

The apex court was considering a SLP moved by the state of Bihar against the decision of January 24, 2018 of the CJ-led bench of the Patna High Court in a writ appeal.

The High Court had been moved in an appeal filed by the State Government calling in question tenability of order dated 25.04.2016, where the writ petitioner along with six other persons had challenged their disengagement as Chowkidar brought into force with effect from 22.01.2014. Even though the petitioner was found to have been engaged in the Work-charged Establishment w.e.f.17.01.1991, he had been denied regularization on the ground that his appointment was after cut-off date 18.01.1991, whereas in the case of other six similarly situated persons, who had also visited the High Court in 2002 along with the petitioner, they have been reinstated and granted the benefit only on account of the fact that they were appointed vide letter dated 31.12.1990 before the cut-off date.

"The learned Writ Court examined the issue and found that the petitioner was also engaged much earlier, but merely because of the hyper technical view of the State Government, he is denied similar benefit like the other employees, who are appointed few days before the petitioner. The learned Writ Court found that there has been discrimination in the matter and granted relief to the petitioner", the HC bench hearing the Letters Patent Appeal had noted.

Expressing the view that the Writ Court has not committed any error, the bench had found that the petitioner was initially engaged as Chowkidar in work-charged establishment on daily wage basis along with 8 persons and when the other 8 persons have been granted the benefit, merely on the hyper technical ground of engagement of the petitioner after a few days of the cut-off date the benefit could not be denied taking note of the fact that he was engaged as daily wages employee and the employer initially had done in the case of other seven employees before bringing them into the work-charged establishment. "The learned Writ Court having analyzed all these factors and having issued the direction, the State Government as a model employer should have implemented the same, as was done in the case of other six employees. Accordingly taking note of the totality of the facts and circumstances, we see no reason to make any indulgence into the matter", the bench had said in dismissing the appeal.

In another matter, the Supreme Court has directed the Director General of Police, Bihar and Registrar General of the Patna High Court to explain why it took 21 years to arrest a man accused in a dowry death case.

FIR was lodged on 02.02.1999 by the brother of a deceased woman alleging that her husband and family had harassed her for dowry. He stated that funeral ceremonies were completed by the husband of the woman and his family without informing her side of the family. 10 years later, a charge sheet was filed in the case against all the accused named in the FIR. The final report notes that "sufficient evidence has been made available for charge­sheet against all the accused named in the FIR".

Earlier this year, after the High court dismissed his anticipatory bail plea. It noted that as per the case diary a "very highly poisonous substance was detected in the viscera examination of the deceased". It was on 07.06.2020, the accused was arrested. His bail pleas were dismissed by the Sessions Court and the High Court.

"The flagrant delay in conducting the investigation and prosecution of the accused in connection with the serious crime involving the death of a young married woman is extremely troubling, and the reasons for the same are unclear.", said the bench comprising Justices NV Ramana, Surya Kant and Aniruddha Bose while considering the appeal filed by the accused husband.

Click Here To Download Order

[Read Order]



Next Story
Share it