Dismissed

Mohammad Shakir and 9 Others v. Mr Akshay Tripathi Nagar Ayukt

Allahabad HC9 Aug 2021CAPL/2813/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court considered an application for initiating contempt proceedings for wilful disobedience of a writ court order regarding regularization of casual employees. The court afforded the opposite parties two months to comply with the prior order instead of initiating contempt immediately, disposing of the application with liberty to file a fresh one if non-compliance continues.

What did the court decide?

The opposite parties were afforded two months from the date of service of this order to comply with the High Court's earlier orders regarding regularization and parity claims.

Mohammad Shakir and 9 Others Vs Mr Akshay Tripathi Nagar… — Contempt of Court | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 4

¶2

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 2813 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Mohammad Shakir And 9 Others Opposite Party :- Mr Akshay Tripathi Nagar Ayukt Counsel for Applicant :- Om Prakash Tripathi,Sanjai Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

¶5

Order on Civil Misc. Impleadment Application No.1 of 2021

¶6

The impleadment application is allowed.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants may carry out the necessary amendment in the memo of party during the course of the day.

¶8

Order on Contempt Application

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the applicants.

¶10

The applicant is before this Court for a direction to initiate contempt proceeding against the opposite parties for wilful disobedience of the judgement and order dated 18.01.2021 passed in Writ A No.14505 of 2020, which for ready reference is quoted as under:-

¶11

"Petitioners were engaged as casual employee in respondent Nagar Nigam, Kanpur. Their engagement was discontinued which led to a reference being made to the Labour Court in Adj. Case No. 101 of 2008. A finding has been returned by the Labour Court as per which petitioners have worked since 1991 to 1996. This award, to the extent of such finding, has attained finality. Petitioners contend that their claim for regularization is liable to be considered in accordance with the scheme framed for regularization in the year 2015-2016 by the State Government. It is also stated that similarly placed persons have also been regularised.

¶12

Since petitioners' claim have not been adverted to with reference to the Government Order dated 24.2.2016 published by the State Government, petitioners are before this Court.

¶13

Sri Y.S. Sachan, learned counsel for respondent Nagar Nigam states that petitioners claim for regularization shall be adverted to by the competent authority, in accordance with law.

¶14

In that view of the matter this petition stands disposed of with a direction upon respondent no. 2 to accord consideration to petitioners' claim for regularization, in accordance with the applicable Government Order within a period of four months from the date of presentation of copy of this order. Petitioners claim for parity qua their alleged juniors shall also be

¶15

examined.

¶16

The concerned Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of computerized copy of this order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall act accordingly without waiting for submission of the certified copy of this order. "

¶17

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that a copy of the aforesaid order was submitted for compliance before the opposite parties but the opposite parties have wilfully not complied with the order and, thus, have committed civil contempt liable for punishment under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

¶18

Prima facie a case of contempt has been made out. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, one more opportunity is afforded to the opposite parties to comply with the aforesaid order of the Court within two months from the date of production of a copy of this order.

¶19

The applicants shall supply a duly stamped registered envelope addressed to the opposite parties and another self-addressed stamped envelope to the office within two weeks from today. The office shall send a copy of this order along with the selfaddressed stamped envelope of the applicants with a copy of contempt application to the opposite parties within one week, thereafter and keep a record thereof. The opposite party shall comply with the directions of the writ Court and intimate the applicant of the order through the self-addressed envelop within a week, thereafter.

¶20

With the aforesaid observations, this application is disposed of at this stage with liberty to the applicant to move a fresh application, if the order is not complied with by the opposite parties within the stipulated time as aforementioned.

¶21

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the petitioners alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.

¶22

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶23

Order Date :- 9.8.2021 Pramod Tripathi

Mohammad Shakir and 9 Others v. Mr Akshay Tripathi Nagar Ayukt

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Shakir and 9 Others v. Mr Akshay Tripathi Nagar Ayukt

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

Baijnath Vs Shri. Abhishek Pandey, S.D.M. Kasia

Chhatradhari Yadav and 6 Others Vs Bhupendra Narayan Singh, Basic Shiksha Adhikari and Another

Bholeshankar Dubey Vs Shri. Santosh Kumar, Assistant Collector (1st)/ Tehsildar

Madhu Sudan Rai Vs Ranveer Singh Chauhan Senior Security Commissioner

Lalchandra Tiwari and Another Vs Civil Judge (J.D.) Jaunpur and 2 Others

Pankaj Kushwaha Vs Shri Bhanu Chandra Goswami, District Magistrate