Dismissed

Indra Pal Mishra v. Sri Jay Singh, Superintending Engineer, Kanpur Circle, P.W.D.

Allahabad HC29 Jul 2021CAPL/1113/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a contempt application for wilful disobedience of a prior writ order directing salary regularization. The opposite party filed an affidavit showing the writ court order was duly complied with via a decision dated 28.04.2021, rendering the application infructuous.

What did the court decide?

Contempt application dismissed as infructuous due to compliance with the original writ order.

Indra Pal Mishra Vs Sri Jay Singh… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 4

¶2

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 1113 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Indra Pal Mishra Opposite Party :- Sri Jay Singh, Superintending Engineer, Kanpur Circle, P.W.D. Counsel for Applicant :- Prabhakar Sinha Counsel for Opposite Party :- K.R. Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

¶5

List has been revised.

¶6

No one appears on behalf of the applicant. Shri K. R. Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appeared on behalf of opposite party.

¶7

The applicant is before this Court for a direction to initiate contempt proceeding against the opposite party for wilful disobedience of the order dated 04.07.2019 passed in Writ A No.9775 of 2019 (Indra Pal Mishra vs.State of U.P. and 5 others). The order is reproduced hereinbelow :-

¶8

"Petitioner was initially appointed on daily wage basis in the respondent Organization and his services were regularized in the year 2006. Upon petitioner's representation a fresh order has been passed by the Superintending Engineer on 25th June, 2017, whereby date of petitioner's regularization has been preponed to 1.4.1998. A consequential order has also been passed fixing petitioner's pay scale on 12th March, 2019. Grievance of the petitioner is that his correct salary was paid for the month of May, 2019 but without passing any order the authorities have unilaterally reduced the salary and has also not deducted the amount of GPF as per U.P. General Provident Fund Rules, 1985. In respect of such grievance, petitioner has also approached the authority concerned but despite specific directions issued for necessary action the grievance of the petitioner does not appear to have been redressed. It is in this backdrop that the petitioner has approached this Court.

¶9

Learned Standing Counsel submits that grievance of petitioner shall be examined by the competent authority, at the first instance.

¶10

In the facts and circumstances, noticed above, this writ petition stands disposed of with a direction upon the concern Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department, to examine the petitioner's claim, as noticed above, in accordance with law, by passing an appropriate reasoned order, within a period of two months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. All consequential benefits would be extended, accordingly"

¶11

Pursuant to the order passed in the present Contempt Petition, affidavit of compliance has been filed by Shri K.R. Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the opposite party, the same is taken on record. In paragraph-5 of the aforesaid affidavit it is stated that pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the claim of the applicant/petitioner was considered and decided vide order dated 28.04.2021, copy of the same is appended as Annexure-1 to the compliance affidavit. Since the order passed by the writ court has already been complied with, therefore, no cause of action remained survive.

¶12

In view of the same, the present contempt application is dismissed as infructuous.

¶13

Order Date :- 29.7.2021 Pr/-

Indra Pal Mishra v. Sri Jay Singh, Superintending Engineer, Kanpur Circle, P.W.D.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indra Pal Mishra v. Sri Jay Singh, Superintending Engineer, Kanpur Circle, P.W.D.

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

Ved Vyas Mishra Vs Shri Dushyant Kumar Mourya, S.D.M. Bansdeeh and Another

Kiran Shankar Prasad Vs Mr Devesh Chaturvedi, Principal Secretary Housing and Urban Planning

Km. Rihana Khan and Another Vs Mr. Dheerendra Pratap, Deputy District Magistrate/ S.D.M. Jhansi

Doodh Nath Ram Vs Mukesh Kumar Singh, Assistnat Collector Ghazipur Sadar

Om Saran Vs Sri Sukhlal Bharti, D.M. and Another

Ravindra Singh Yadav Vs Anjali Agarwal, D.B.E.O.