Dismissed

Rama Shanker Yadav v. Bhashker Mishra

Allahabad HC5 Mar 2020CAPL/6882/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this contempt application, the court examined the high court's order dated 4.10.2018 regarding pensionary benefits. Finding that the opposite party had filed an affidavit confirming compliance via an order dated 1.1.2020, the court dismissed the contempt petition.

What did the court decide?

Notices issued to the opposite party are discharged and the contempt application is dismissed.

Rama Shanker Yadav Vs Bhashker Mishra — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 32

¶2

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 6882 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Rama Shanker Yadav Opposite Party :- Bhashker Mishra Counsel for Applicant :- Gopal Ji Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ashok Kumar Pandey

¶4

Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned counsel for the opposite party and perused the record.

¶6

The operative portion of the judgment and order rendered by this Court on 4.10.2018 in Writ-A No. 21355 of 2018 (Rama Shanker Yadav and another vs. State of U.P. and others) the non compliance of which is alleged is extracted hereunder:

¶7

"In view of the fact that necessary factual aspect are yet to be ascertained and the quantification of their pensionery benefit, if any, is yet to be made, without entering into the merits of the controversy, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction, in case the petitioners file their individual representations before the respondent no.3- District Inspector of Schools, District Ballia within a period of two weeks from today alongwith a certified copy of this order, the same shall be decided strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of such representation being made. It is further expected, if the claim of the petitioners are allowed, payment shall be made available to them without any further delay."

¶8

The opposite party-District Inspector of Schools, Ballia on being noticed in the contempt petition has filed an affidavit of compliance stating in paragraph 5 of the affidavit that representation of the petitioner with regard to payment of arrears of salary has already been considered and decided vide order dated 1.1.2020 which is appended as annexure 2 to the compliance affidavit.

¶9

In view of above, since the order passed by this Court dated 4.10.2018 passed in Writ-A No.21355 of 2018 has been complied with, the contempt application is liable to be dismissed.

¶10

Notices issued to the opposite party are discharged.

¶11

The contempt application(Civil) is accordingly dismissed.

¶12

Order Date :- 5.3.2020/P.P.

Rama Shanker Yadav v. Bhashker Mishra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rama Shanker Yadav v. Bhashker Mishra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Sunita and 4 Othrs. Vs M.a.C.T./Addl. Distt. Judge and 5 Others

Mohd. Shahvez and 6 Others Vs Mohd. Yusuf @ Idoo

Smt. Madhuri Mishra Vs Smt. Sooraj Mukhi (Since Deceased) and 6 Others

Sarkar Haidar (Since Deceased) and 9 Others Vs Qamar Jahan and 14 Others

Netrapal Singh Vs U.P.S.R.T.C. and Anr.

Divya Pandey and Another vs National Insurance Company Ltd. and 3 Others