Dismissed

Smt Malti Devi v. Sri Prakash Singh, District Basic Education

Allahabad HC2 Aug 2021CAPL/752/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt application filed for non-compliance of an order directing payment of salary to reinstated petitioners, the court found that the opposite party had complied with the directive. Consequently, the cause of action was extinguished and the application was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Contempt application dismissed as having no cause of action due to compliance with the previous order.

Smt Malti Devi Vs Sri Prakash Singh, District Basic… — Contempt of Court | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 4

¶2

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 752 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Smt Malti Devi Opposite Party :- Sri Prakash Singh, District Basic Education Counsel for Applicant :- Awadhesh Kumar Malviya,Babloo Pant

¶4

Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant.

¶6

The applicant has preferred the present contempt application for non-compliance of the final judgment and order dated 23.01.2020 passed in Writ -A No. 1148 of 2020 (Malti Devi And another vs. State of U.P. and 2 others). The order dated 23.01.2020 is reproduced herein below:-

¶7

"Heard Sri Pankaj Srivastava, learned counsel for petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Harsh Vardhan Gupta, learned counsel for respondent no. 3.

¶8

It is contended that by order dated 14.08.2018, services of petitioners were terminated by District Basic Education Officer. This Court on 08.07.2019, in Writ-A No. 5185 of 2019 filed by petitioners, stayed the effect and operation of order dated 14.08.2018 passed by respondent no. 3. As petitioners were not reinstated, they filed a Contempt Application (Civil) No. 5945 of 2019. It appears that on 02.11.2019, District Basic Education Officer, Kaushambi passed order to the effect that petitioners have been reinstated. Pursuant to which contempt application was disposed of and notices against the contemnor were discharged.

¶9

Present petition has been filed with a prayer for release of salary of petitioners pursuant to their reinstatement from 08.11.2019 onwards.

¶10

Sri Srivastava submitted that once petitioners were reinstated on the strength of interim order of this Court, they were also entitled for the salary.

¶11

On the other hand, Sri Harsh Vardhan Gupta, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 3 submitted that services of petitioners was terminated on the ground that they had given forged documents in the T.E.T. examination of 2011 and matter is still pending consideration. He further submitted that counter affidavit on behalf of State functionaries has also been filed in the earlier petition, filed by petitioner along with stay vacation application but no rejoinder affidavit has been filed till date by

¶12

petitioners.

¶13

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and scanning through the material on record, I find that this Court on 08.07.2019 had stayed the effect and operation of order dated 14.08.2018 passed by respondent no. 3, pursuant to which petitioners were reinstated on 08.11.2019.

¶14

As the claim of payment of salary of petitioners is pending before respondent no. 3, he is directed to decide the claim of petitioners in regard to payment of salary within 15 days from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶15

The writ petition stands disposed of. "

¶16

Today when the matter was taken up, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the order passed by the Writ Court has been complied with by the opposite party.

¶17

In view of above, no cause of action survives in the present contempt application.

¶18

Accordingly, the present contempt application is dismissed as having become infructuous.

¶19

Order Date :- 2.8.2021 nd

Smt Malti Devi v. Sri Prakash Singh, District Basic Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Malti Devi v. Sri Prakash Singh, District Basic Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Bilash Chauhan Vs Suraj Yadav S.D.M. and 3 Others

Awadhesh Kumar and 2 Others Vs Smt Aaradhana Shukla, Principal Secretary, Department of Sec. Education. and 7 Others

Ram Narayan Pandey and 6 Others Vs Smt Aaradhana Shukla, Principal Secretary, Department of Sec. Edu. and 4 Others

Arshad Jamal Siddiqui Vs Shri Amit Singh Bansal, D.M. and Another

Smt Pratibha Ojha @ Pratima Ojha Vs Ajeet Chaudhary, Executive Officer and 2 Others

Smt.Nirmala Devi Vs Dev Dutt Yadav and 5 Others