Disposed

Madhu Sudan Rai v. Ranveer Singh Chauhan Senior Security Commissioner

Allahabad HC9 Aug 2021CAPL/2972/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This applicant filed a contempt application alleging wilful disobedience of a prior order directing the respondent to decide a pension/salary representation. The court prima facie noted a case of contempt but granted a further opportunity to the opposite parties to comply within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Further compliance to the impugned order within six weeks was directed to the liable party.

Madhu Sudan Rai Vs Ranveer Singh Chauhan Senior Security… — Contempt of Court | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 4

¶2

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 2972 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Madhu Sudan Rai Opposite Party :- Ranveer Singh Chauhan Senior Security Commissioner

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Dubey

¶5

Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

¶6

The applicant is before this Court for a direction to initiate contempt proceeding against the opposite party for wilful disobedience of the order dated 10.12.2020 passed in Writ A No. 11620 of 2020 (Madhu Sudan Rai Vs. Union of India and 2 Others), which for ready reference is quoted as under:-

¶7

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Rajnish Kumar Rai, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶8

By means of this writ petition, petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

¶9

(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to fix the basic pay scale of Rs. 36,400/- in place of Rs. 35,300/- according to 7th Pay Commission forthwith and also directing them to pay the arrears of salary of the petitioner.

¶10

The sole grievance of the petitioner, who has been retired from the service from Railway Security Force, Diesel Locomotive Works, Varanasi after attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2020, is that his representation dated 18.08.2020 claiming fixation of salary at par with his batchmates, is pending consideration before respondents since 18.08.2020. He prayed that a suitable direction may be issued to state respondents to decide his pending representation.

¶11

Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection to the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner.

¶12

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, with the consent of the parties, without commenting on the merits of the case, the petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent no. 3 i.e. Senior Security Commissioner, Railway Security Force, Diesel Locomotive Works at Varanasi to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner dated 18.08.2020, in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy of this order."

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant 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

¶14

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

¶15

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 six weeks from the date of production of a copy of this order.

¶16

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.

¶17

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

¶18

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.

¶19

Order Date :- 9.8.2021 Swati

Madhu Sudan Rai v. Ranveer Singh Chauhan Senior Security Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhu Sudan Rai v. Ranveer Singh Chauhan Senior Security Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

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

Mohammad Shakir and 9 Others Vs Mr Akshay Tripathi Nagar Ayukt

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

Pankaj Kushwaha Vs Shri Bhanu Chandra Goswami, District Magistrate