Disposed

Nupur Srivastava v. Sri Ajay Kumar Singh Secretary Basic Education U.P. Govt.

Allahabad HC2 May 2019CAPL/4602/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court granted impleadment of Smt. Manisha Tighatiya as respondent no.2 in a contempt application. The applicant sought relief based on a recent Division Bench judgment in Special Appeal No.673/2018 regarding compassionate appointments. The court disposed of the impleadment application and directed the impleaded respondent to decide the applicant's claim expeditiously within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; Smt. Manisha Tighatiya impleaded as respondent no.2; respondent directed to decide applicant's claim within six weeks.

Nupur Srivastava Vs Sri Ajay Kumar Singh… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 10 Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 4602 of 2016

¶2

Applicant :- Nupur Srivastava Opposite Party :- Sri Ajay Kumar Singh Secretary Basic Education U.P. Govt.

¶3

Counsel for Applicant :- Hemant Kumar,Saurabh Srivastava

¶4

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

In Re: Impleadment Application

¶6

This is an application seeking impleadment of Smt. Manisha Tighatiya, Secretary Basic Education, Government of U.P. at Lucknow as opposite party no.2.

¶7

Application is allowed.

¶8

Let the necessary impleadment be carried out forthwith.

¶9

In Re: Contempt Petition

¶10

The present contempt application under Section 12 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 has been preferred against the opposite party, who has willfully and deliberately flouted the order dated 31.05.2016 passed by Writ Court in Writ A no.26753/2016 (Nupur Srivastava vs. State of U.P. and others) wherein the Court has proceeded to pass following order:-

¶11

"There is another aspect of the matter. After severance of the marriage by divorce there is no marriage subsisting, therefore the claim of the petitioner in any case for appointment on compassionate ground could in any case have not been rejected and her case would have to be considered simply as the daughter of the deceased government servant.

¶12

The impugned order dated 28.04.2016 therefore is in the teeth of the observation of the Court made in its earlier order dated 10.01.2014 as well as the law settled by this Court in the case of Smt. Vimla Srivastava (supra) and Smt. Uma (supra) and the same cannot survive and is accordingly quashed.

¶13

The writ petition is allowed.

¶14

The matter is remitted to the respondent no.2, Secretary (Basic Education) Government of U.P. at Lucknow to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground in view of the law already settled by this Court within a period of one month from the date a certified copy of this order is received in his office."

¶15

The matter was taken up on 12.09.2016 and the Court has proceeded to pass following order:-

¶16

"Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to hand over a copy of this contempt to Shri Neeraj Upadhyay, learned ACSC forthwith who in turn will obtain instructions, else the court may take serious view of the matter.

¶17

Put up as fresh on 20.10.2016."

¶18

Today when the matter is taken up, learned counsel for the applicant, in support of his submission, has placed reliance on the judgement passed in Special Appeal (D) No.673/2018 (State of U.P. and others vs. Noopur Srivastava) wherein the validity of order passed by learned Single Judge dated 27.08.2018 in Writ Petition no.23906 (S/S) of 2018 has been assailed and finally the Division Bench of this Court has partly allowed the appeal with following direction:-

¶19

"The Hon'ble Single Judge has given a specific direction for providing appointment on compassionate ground and we feel that this direction be modified. The direction issued by the learned Single Judge to grant appointment to the petitioner (respondent in appeal) on compassionate appointment within a period of two weeks is modified to the extent that the respondent No. 3 (appellant No. 3 herein) would consider the claim of the petitioner (respondent in appeal) for compassionate appointment in the light of the observations and findings recorded in the judgment within a period of four weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

¶20

The Appeal is partly allowed."

¶21

Learned counsel for the applicant further apprised to the Court that till today the said judgement has not been assailed by the State and as such, for all practical purpose, the same has attained finality.

¶22

In the facts and circumstances, rendering the judgement passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal (D) No.673/2018, the claim set up by the applicant is liable to be addressed by the opposite party. Accordingly, the present application is disposed of asking the newly impleaded respondent to decide the claim set up by the applicant in the light of the aforesaid judgement passed by the Division Bench expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of production of certified cop of this order.

¶23

Order Date :- 2.5.2019 A. Pandey

Nupur Srivastava v. Sri Ajay Kumar Singh Secretary Basic Education U.P. Govt.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nupur Srivastava v. Sri Ajay Kumar Singh Secretary Basic Education U.P. Govt.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhim Singh Vs Anil Raj Kumar Addl.Registratadmn. Co-Operative Societies

Ram Dhani and 3 Others Vs Mr.Ravi Prakash Srivastava Posted Consolidation Officer

Ashok Kumar and Another Vs Dr. Anjana Goyal Presently Posted J.D.E. and Another

Ratnesh Kumar Pandey Vs Suhash L.Y. Distt. Magistrate

Deen Dayal Vs Dr. Roshan Jaikab D.M. and 2 Ors.

Ganesh Prasad Vs Suhas Lalinakere Yathiraj, District Magistrate