Disposed

Dr Pramod Kumar Singh v. Shri Prashant Trivedi, Additional Chief Secretary/Principal Secretary Medical Education

Allahabad HC11 Aug 2021CAPL/3010/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this contempt application, the applicant sought to initiate proceedings for willful disobedience of an order in W.P. No.3291 of 2018 regarding regularization. The court found a prima facie case but granted the respondent two months to comply, disposing of the application with liberty to move a fresh application if non-compliance occurs.

What did the court decide?

Prima facie case of contempt found but the opposite party granted two months to comply. Application disposed of with liberty to move a fresh application if not complied with.

Dr Pramod Kumar Singh Vs Shri Prashant… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 4

¶2

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 3010 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Dr Pramod Kumar Singh Opposite Party :- Shri Prashant Trivedi, Additional Chief Secretary/Principal Secretary Medical Education Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Sharma

¶4

Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant.

¶6

The applicant is before this Court for a direction to initiate contempt proceeding against the opposite parties for wilful disobedience of the order dated 06.02.2020 passed in Writ Petition No.3291 of 2018 (Dr Pramod Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P.). The aforesaid order is quoted as under:-

¶7

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Arimardan Singh Rajpoot, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.

¶8

The petitioner in the present writ petition has assailed the order dated 21.08.2017 passed by the Secretary, Department of Medical Education and Medical Health (Chikitsha Sewa Evam Ayush) Government of U.P., Lucknow rejecting his claim for regularization.

¶9

The facts as transpires from the record that the petitioner pursuant to an Advertisement dated 23.5.1987 for appointment of Medical Officer, Aurvedic and Unani Chikitsa Sewa was not permitted to apply for the said post on the ground that he has obtained degree from the University which was located outside the State of U.P. The petitioner preferred writ petition challenging the said action which was disposed of in the year 1991 directing the authorities to consider his candidature for the post in question. The petitioner was selected and given appointment on adhoc basis on the post of Medical Officer in the year 2004.

¶10

The petitioner thereafter claimed regularization under U. P. Regularisation of Ad hoc Appointment (On the Posts Outside the Purview of Public Service Commission) (3rd Amendment) Rules, 2001. When the claim of the petitioner for regularization was not considered by the Competent Authority, the petitioner preferred Writ A No. 28554 of 2012 (Dr. Sita Raman Saran and others Vs. State of U.P. and another) wherein this Court directed the authorities to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner for regularization.

¶11

Pursuant to the direction of this Court dated 28.3.2016, the claim of the petitioner was considered by the Secretary, Department of Medical Education and Medical Health (Chikitsha Sewa Evam Ayush) Government of U.P., Lucknow who by order dated 21.08.2017 rejected the petitioner's claim for regularization on the ground that the appointment of the petitioner has been made after the cut off date provided under the U. P. Regularisation of Ad hoc Appointment (On the Posts Outside the Purview of Public Service Commission) (3rd Amendment) Rules, 2001 as the petitioner was appointed on 27.5.2004 whereas as per the regularization rules only those candidates who have been appointed prior to 30th June, 1998 would be considered.

¶12

Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the controversy in hand is settled by this Court in the case of Writ A No. 7405 of 2017 (Dr. Sita Raman Saran and 2 others Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others) and also by Full Bench judgement of this Court in bunch of petitions of which leading is Service Bench No. 1639 of 2015 decided on 26.10.2017 wherein similarly situated persons whose appointment has been made after the cut off date i.e. 30th June, 1998 have been extended the benefit of regularization. Thus, the submission is that the order impugned is not sustainable and the services of the petitioner deserves to be regularized.

¶13

Per contra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submits that as the petitioner was appointed after the cut off date as provided in the U. P. Regularisation of Ad hoc Appointment (On the Posts Outside the Purview of Public Service Commission) (3rd Amendment) Rules, 2001, therefore, the respondent No. 1 was right in rejecting the claim of petitioner for regularization.

¶14

I have heard the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶15

The aforesaid two judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in identical situation have extended the benefit of regularization to the candidates who have been appointed after the cut off date provided under U. P. Regularisation of Ad hoc Appointment (On the Posts Outside the Purview of Public Service Commission) (3rd Amendment) Rules, 2001.

¶16

It would be relevant to refer the Paragraph Nos. 26 and 27 of Full Bench judgement of this Court passed in Service Bench No. 1639 of 2015 alongwith other connected cases which is extracted herein below:-

¶17

"26. Once the petitioners were all along agitating for their rights in terms of Government Order dated 01.10.1991 and having approached this Court for the redressal of the grievances and having staked the claim for their regularization on the basis of said Government Order dated 01.10.1991, which resulted in the judgment of this Court dated 18.07.1996 and it being affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court with the dismissal of the special leave petition on 23.03.1998, thus the same entailed and entitled the petitioners for being appointed on ad-hoc basis once their right stood crystallized in terms of Government Order dated 01.10.1991 and the judgment of the Court dated 18.07.1996 i.e. much prior to the cut-off date under the Regularization Rules, 1979 of 30.06.1998. Therefore, once the impugned action on the part of opposite parties is viewed in light of discussions made above, it is apparent that the impugned orders rejecting the claim of the petitioners for their regularization are patently arbitrary, malicious and illegal and thus the said rejection orders merit outright quashing with a further direction for reconsideration of the claims of the petitioners for regularization.

¶18

27. Accordingly, a writ of certiorari is issued quashing the order dated 11.01.2012, passed in Writ Petition No. 1639 (S/B) of 2015 - Dr. Sunita Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & another. A mandamus is issued in all the writ petitions directing the opposite party no.-1 to reconsider the case of all the petitioners for regularization of their services under the Regularization Rules 1979, strictly in accordance with the observations made herein above, treating them as ad-hoc Medical Officer from a date prior to 30.06.1998. Such orders shall be passed within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the opposite party no. 1. While considering the case of the petitioners for regularization, the date of regularization of their seniors and

¶19

juniors shall also be kept in mind by the opposite parties. It is also made clear that the case of the petitioners shall not be rejected on the ground that they were not appointed as ad-hoc Medical Officer prior to 30.06.1998."

¶20

Learned Standing Counsel could not demonstrate from the record that the case of the petitioner is not covered by the aforesaid two judgements of this Court.

¶21

Thus, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the order impugned is quashed and the writ petition is allowed in terms of the Full Bench judgment and order dated 26.10.2017 passed in Service Bench No. 1639 of 2015. There shall be no order as to costs."

¶22

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 willfully not complied with the order and, thus, have committed civil contempt liable for punishment under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

¶23

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.

¶24

The applicant 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 self-addressed stamped envelope of the applicant 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.

¶25

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.

¶26

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant 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.

¶27

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.

¶28

Order Date :- 11.8.2021 saqlain

Dr Pramod Kumar Singh v. Shri Prashant Trivedi, Additional Chief Secretary/Principal Secretary Medical Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr Pramod Kumar Singh v. Shri Prashant Trivedi, Additional Chief Secretary/Principal Secretary Medical Education

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

Arvind Singh and 2 Others Vs Kaushal Raj Sharma D.M

Subedar Ram and Another Vs Civil Judge and 2 Others

Smt Savita Devi Vs Surendra Bahadur Singh,Superintending Engineer, Nalkoop Division and Another

Surya Narayan Dubey Vs Jai Prakash Dubey and Another

Salam Ahmad Vs Anil Kumar Pathak, Tehsildar

Naresh Pal Vs Ashutosh Bhardwaj, Deputy Director of Education ( Secondary)