Dismissed

Sattira Devi v. Bal Krishan Executive Engineer Vidyut Vitran KHAND-1 Madh

Allahabad HC7 Nov 2023CAPL/1771/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge disposed of a contempt application filed by an employee regarding non-compliance with a Writ Court order. The court dismissed the petition due to the applicant's failure to explain prior service not disclosed before the court, finding the order complied with in form and spirit. Complaint was due to alleged concealment of prior employment dates and failure to join the post.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed; impugned Writ Court order stands upheld. Notices discharged.

Sattira Devi Vs Bal Krishan Executive Engineer Vidyut… — Contempt of Court | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:73631

¶2

Court No. - 4

¶3

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 1771 of 2017

¶4

Applicant :- Sattira Devi Opposite Party :- Bal Krishan Executive Engineer Vidyut Vitran Khand-1 Madh Counsel for Applicant :- Arun Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- Mayank Sinha,Shreeprakash Singh,Ved Prakash Shukla Ii

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Mayank Sinha, learned counsel for the opposite parties.

¶7

2. Sri Sinha, learned counsel for the opposite parties has stated that the order of the Writ Court has been complied with in its letter and spirit. He has further submitted that despite the fact that the petitioner has been discharging her duties as Anganbadi Karyakatri at Anganbadi Centre-Pakdi, Development Block-Dubeypur, DistrictSultanpur, since February, 2005 and the same fact has not been disclosed before the Court, even then, considering the fact that her late husband was a contract employee she has been offered appointment as direct employee through outsourcing agency, namely, M/S Radhey Enterprises, Gondwa, Katawan, Sultanpur, as the letter dated 28.02.2018 to this effect has been annexed as Annexure No.SA-2 with the application for framing of the charges along with affidavit filed on 15.04.2018.

¶8

3. Sri Sinha, learned counsel for the opposite parties has further submitted, on the basis of information so received, that the petitioner has not submitted her joining on the post in question.

¶9

4. On that, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner was entitled regular appointment, therefore, she has not submitted her joining. He has further submitted that till date the petitioner has not been provided regular appointment.

¶10

5. However, on being confronted as to why this fact has not been disclosed to the Court that the present petitioner has been serving as Anganbadi Karyakatri since February, 2005, learned counsel for the petitioner could not explain the same.

¶11

6. In view of the above, the instant contempt petition is dismissed.

¶12

7. Notices, if any, stand discharged.

¶13

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]

¶14

Order Date :- 7.11.2023 Suresh/

¶15

Digitally signed by :- SURESH CHANDRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sattira Devi v. Bal Krishan Executive Engineer Vidyut Vitran KHAND-1 Madh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sattira Devi v. Bal Krishan Executive Engineer Vidyut Vitran KHAND-1 Madh

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

Abdul Qayoom Ansari and Anr. Vs Sukhlal Bharti MD Up Industrial Coop. Assositation Ltd.andANR.

Nyaya Mission Seva Samiti Thru. Secretary Mr. Alok Kumar Pat Vs Ramjeet Yadav Secy. Bar Council of U.P.

Meena Kumari Yadav Vs R.N. Bajpai Additional Commissioner Administration GONDAandORS

Jugal Kishore Vs Sri Bhuvnesh Kumar Prin.Secy.Technical Edu. Lucknow and Anr.

Gyan Singh Chandel and Others Vs Dr. Sudhir M. Bobday and Others

Sri Ram Vs Shubhra Saxena D.M Hardoi