Dismissed

dinesh singh v. smt. manju sharma, additional director of education and another

Allahabad HC3 May 2018CAPL/2220/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this contempt application regarding alleged disobedience of an order mandating salary consideration, the court dismissed the petition. The court found no ground for contempt as the applicant's name did not appear in the committee report sanctioning salaries sent to court. Furthermore, the applicant had not assailed the report. The petition was dismissed with no order initiating contempt proceed

What did the court decide?

No order initiating contempt proceedings was made. The petition was dismissed.

dinesh singh Vs smt. manju sharma, additional director… — Contempt of Court | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 59

¶2

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 2220 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Dinesh Singh Opposite Party :- Smt. Manju Sharma, Additional Director Of Education And Another Counsel for Applicant :- J.P.N. Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant.

¶6

This petition alleges disobedience of an order dated 24 October 2017 in terms of which the writ Court had provided the applicant opportunity to file a representation before the D.I.O.S., Ballia to consider and decide his claim with regard to arrears of salary.

¶7

The Court is constrained to note that insofar as the institutions in district Ballia are concerned, the same formed subject matter of scrutiny and examination of a committee constituted by this Court in the matter of Dhruv Narain Singh Vs. State of U.P. Pursuant to the directions issued therein, the Court had provided that the Committee would examine the case of each individual institution and thereafter record a finding with regard to teaching and other staff which would be entitled to payment of salary. The Court had further observed that in case any applicant be aggrieved by the determination made by the Committee, it would be open to such employee or teacher to initiate appropriate steps in accordance with law.

¶8

Pursuant to the last order, a Supplementary Affidavit has been filed appended to which is a report of the Committee dated 1 February 2016 in respect of the institution in which the applicant claims to have been employed. It is not disputed that the name of the applicant does not find mention in this report. The sole contention which is advanced by the learned counsel is that the name of the applicant is not included in the list of surplus staff and bearing in mind the total number of Lecturers which were recognized to exist, the applicant is entitled to relief.

¶9

This Court finds itself unable to accept this submission since the report has sanctioned salary only in respect of 7 Lecturers whose names find mention there. As noted above, the name of the applicant does not find mention in the list of approved staff. It is also not disputed before this Court that the report of this Committee has not been assailed by the applicant.

¶10

Consequently, this Court finds no ground to initiate proceedings in contempt. The petition is dismissed .

¶11

Order Date :- 3.5.2018 Arun K. Singh

¶12

(Yashwant Varma, J.)

dinesh singh v. smt. manju sharma, additional director of education and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

dinesh singh v. smt. manju sharma, additional director of education and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prabhu Nath Chaurasia Vs Sri. A.K. Tyagi Chief Engineer Jal Nigam

smt. rashmi singh Vs arun kumar dubey district inspector of schools and 3 others

Surabhi Singh Vs Sanjay Sinha Secy. Basic Shiksha Parishad

uma kant and 8 other Vs sri suhas l.y. d.m.

Sharad Kumar Jaiswal Vs Gunjan Kumar Baranwal and Another

mahaveer prasad Vs prabhakar chaudhary, senior superintendent of police