Dismissed

Sanjeev Kumar v. Sudhir Kumar, Chief Executive Officer

Allahabad HC13 Sept 2023CAPL/4939/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellant filed a contempt application claiming the opposite party failed to comply with a writ court order seeking compassionate appointment. The court held that authorities considered the application and decided it by order dated 29.11.2022, thereby complying with the writ order. Thus, the contempt application was rendered infructuous and dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Contempt notice discharged; the contempt application is dismissed on the ground that the writ order stands complied with by the authorities.

Sanjeev Kumar Vs Sudhir Kumar, Chief Executive Officer — Contempt of Court | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:177457

¶2

Court No. - 9

¶3

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 4939 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar Opposite Party :- Sudhir Kumar, Chief Executive Officer Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Pandey,Shalini Sharma

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- Prashant Mathur

¶6

Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Prashant Mathur, learned counsel for the opposite party through video conferencing.

¶8

The writ Court on 19.03.2018 while disposing of Writ-A No. 30653 of 2016 passed the following order:-

¶9

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shakti Dhar Dubey, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶10

By the impugned order dated 19th May, 2016 the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected by the Chief Executive Officer, Cantonment Board, Fatehgarh on the ground that while his mother is working, he cannot be considered for compassionate appointment in place of his father.

¶11

The mother of the petitioner has retired from the service of Cantonment Board on 30.06.2017.

¶12

In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been stated in para 7 that after retirement of the mother of the petitioner the application of the petitioner can be considered by the Cantonment Board.

¶13

In view of the above, petitioner is at liberty to make fresh application before the Authorities concerned praying for compassionate appointment, which shall be considered and decided within a period of four weeks from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order.

¶14

Petition stands disposed of finally."

¶15

Learned counsel for the opposite party states that order of writ Court was to the extent to decide the application filed by applicant for compassionate appointment. According to him, the authorities on 29.11.2022 had considered the application for grant of compassionate appointment and had decided the same by order dated 29.11.2022. Copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure-4 to compliance affidavit.

¶16

After perusing the order passed by writ Court, it is clear that only direction was that in case a fresh application is moved by applicant before authorities for grant of compassionate appointment, the same was to be considered by the authorities.

¶17

In view of said fact, as the authorities have decided the application for compassionate appointment on 29.11.2022, the order of writ Court stands complied with. The contempt application is rendered infructuous and the same stands dismissed.

¶18

Contempt notice stands discharged.

¶19

Order Date :- 13.9.2023 V.S.Singh

¶20

Digitally signed by :- VIDYA SAGAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sanjeev Kumar v. Sudhir Kumar, Chief Executive Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjeev Kumar v. Sudhir Kumar, Chief Executive Officer

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

Kamala Devi Vs Saurabh Bhatt, Sdm, Tehsil - Phoolpur

Ram Akshaibar Mishra Vs Ashok Kumar, Secretary Uppsc and Another

Anuj Yadav Vs Omveer Singh, S.P.

Saran Kali Thapa Vs Dr. Jai Prakash, the Registrar and 2 Others

M/S Rukmani and Company Vs Sri Amit Aaseri, Municipal Commissioner

Swati Singhal Vs Shri Pratap Singh Baghel, Secretry Basic Education Board