Dismissed

Brij Bihari Verma v. Visheshwar Prasad, Executive Engineer, Construction Division, U.P. Jal Nigam

Allahabad HC10 May 2019CAPL/2920/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a contempt application filed against an executive engineer. It held that the recovery of money before the interim stay order did not constitute a flouting of that order, requiring a separate application for release of funds.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is allowed to move an application in the pending writ petition for release of the recovered amount.

Brij Bihari Verma Vs Visheshwar Prasad, Executive… — Contempt of Court | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 10

¶2

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 2920 of 2019 Applicant :- Brij Bihari Verma Opposite Party :- Visheshwar Prasad, Executive Engineer, Construction Division, U.P. Jal Nigam Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Srivastava

¶3

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶4

The present contempt application has been preferred against the opposite party for willful disobedience of the order dated 21.12.2017 passed in Writ-A No. 62146 of 2017 whereby the Division Bench of this Court has proceeded to pass the interim order to the following effect.

¶5

"Heard Shri Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Vimlesh Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the respondents no. 2 to 6.

¶6

The petitioner was working under the respondent no. 6 as Pump Operator. He was a regular employee and retired on 31.12.2009.

¶7

By means of this writ petition the petitioner has raised a grievance that now after eight years an order has been passed by Executive Engineer dated 21.1.2017 directing for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,46,336/- from the retiral dues of the petitioner on account of wrong fixation of pay.

¶8

The matter requires consideration.

¶9

Shri Vilmesh Kumar Rai appears for respondents no. 2 to 6. He prays for and is allowed one month's time to file counter affidavit.

¶10

List this case after expiry of the aforesaid date.

¶11

As an interim measure it is provided that in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334, the recovery proceeding pursuant to order dated 21.1.2017 shall remain stayed."

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant states that admittedly in the present matter the recovery proceeding had been initiated on 21.1.2017 and certain amount had already been recovered prior to the interim relief given by this Court.

¶13

In the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion, in case, certain amount had been recovered prior to the interim order accorded by this Court, definitely, the applicant may move an application for release of the said amount in the pending writ petition and there is no flouting of the interim order accorded by this Court.

¶14

With the aforesaid, the present contempt application is dismissed .

¶15

Order Date :- 10.5.2019 A.K.Srivastava

Brij Bihari Verma v. Visheshwar Prasad, Executive Engineer, Construction Division, U.P. Jal Nigam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brij Bihari Verma v. Visheshwar Prasad, Executive Engineer, Construction Division, U.P. Jal Nigam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Naresh Vs Prabhakar Chaudhary and Another

Zilani and Another Vs Prem Chandra Maurya S.D.M. Soreon

Sukhrani Vs Brijendra Kumar Rai, Tehsildar

Lala Ram Vs Shailendra Kumar, S.D.O. Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. and Another

Namdar and Another Vs Vivek Chaurdhary, Civil Judge (J.D.) F.T.C.

Anant Dev Singh Vs Ram Siromani, S.D.M, Maitha