Dismissed

Girand Singh and Anr. v. M.V.S. Rami Reddy Prin. Secy. Cooperative Deptt. and Ors.

Allahabad HC4 Jan 2024CAPL/1380/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a contempt application filed by Kurk Amin petitioners claiming the State failed to comply with directions treating them as government servants to provide pensions and benefits. The court held that the State had issued a detailed order compliant with the Supreme Court’s guidance.

What did the court decide?

The contempt petition was dismissed and notices were discharged. The court permitted the petitioners to challenge the order dated 27.03.2023 before an appropriate forum if aggrieved.

Girand Singh and Anr. Vs M.V.S. Rami Reddy Prin. Secy… — Contempt of Court | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:1068

¶2

Court No. - 19

¶3

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 1380 of 2020

¶4

Applicant :- Girand Singh And Anr. Opposite Party :- M.V.S. Rami Reddy Prin. Secy. Cooperative Deptt. And Ors. Counsel for Applicant :- Awadhesh Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- CSC

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

The counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were initially appointed on the post of Kurk Amin by the District Magistrate in the year, 1970 and thereafter, certain other identical situated persons were treated as Government employees but the petitioners were left to be considered. Being aggrieved, they filed a writ petition bearing Service Single No.312 of 2011, wherein the orders was passed on 21.01.2011, the operative portion of the order is quoted here-in-under:-

¶7

"The opposite parties are directed to treat the petitioners as Government servants and pay them all the service benefits and post retiral dues, including the pension etc., within a period of six months from the date of receipt a certified copy of this order."

¶8

Referring the aforesaid, he submits that by the aforesaid order, the opposite parties were directed to treat the petitioners as a Government servant and pay them all the service benefits and post retiral dues, including the pension etc., within the period of six months from the date of certified copy of the order is served upon them. He added that even after the copy served upon the opposite party, the same was not complied with, though the State filed an special appeal, which was dismissed vide order dated 14.09.2018 and thereafter, a review petition was instituted, which was dismissed in limine and again a review was instituted, that too was dismissed and thereafter, the State Government approached the Apex Court by way of instituting SLP (Civil) No.9412, 15014-15015 and 1501015011/2022 along with the other SLPs, which was decided

¶9

while connecting all those vide order dated 25.01.2023 whereby the opposite parties were directed to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the judgment passed on 20.03.2001 in Civil Appeal No.2167 of 2001.

¶10

Contention of counsel for the petitioners is that even after the aforesaid direction passed by this Court as well as the order dated 12.01.2011, the matter of the petitioner has not been decided in right perspective vide order dated 27.03.2023. He also added that there is no observation with respect to the Civil Appeal No.2167 of 2001 in the order of the Principal Secretary of the Cooperative Department. Therefore, submission is that the respondents have not complied with the order passed by this Court and thus they have committed wilful contempt.

¶11

On the other hand, Shri Mohit Jauhari, learned Standing Counsel for the State submitted that in fact, the order passed in special appeal and the review petition, was assailed before the Apex Court, wherein the Apex Court has passed the order on 25.01.2023, the operative portion of the order is quoted here-inunder:-

¶12

"IN SLP (C) No(s) 9412, 15014-15015 & 15010-15011/2022

¶13

We do not find it necessary to go into the grievance(s) in each of the Petition.

¶14

We however, clarify that the cases of each of the respondents in the present petitions would be considered by the State Government in the light of the judgment of this Court passed on 20.03.2001 in C.A. No. 2167 of 2001 etc. titled as State of U.P. & Ors. vs. Chandra Prakash Pandey & Ors. reported in 2001(4) SCC 78 as also the judgment of this Court passed on 05.10.2005 in Contempt Petition (c) Nos. 110-111 of 2003 etc. titled as Chander Pal Singh & Ors. vs. Ajay Kumar Josh & Anr. reported in 2005 (12) SCC 537.

¶15

The Special Leave Petitions are disposed of accordingly.

¶16

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of."

¶17

Referring the aforesaid, he submitted that the Apex Court

¶18

while clarifying, has directed that the case of each of the respondents, including the present petitioners, would be considered by the State Government in the light of the judgment of this Court passed on 20.03.2001 in Civil Appeal No.2167 of 2001. He added and has drawn attention towards the order dated 27.03.2023, which has been appended, which started from running page 9 of short counter affidavit dated 07.04.2023 and submitted that a detailed order has been passed in pursuance to the order dated 25.01.2023 passed by the Apex Court and the petitioner if aggrieved with the order aforesaid, may challenge the same at appropriate forum/ Court.

¶19

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of material place on record, it transpires that a dispute arose with respect to the petitioners to be treated as Government employees and the remunerations be paid to them, at par to the regular employee and in that context, when a writ petition was instituted, an order was passed on 12.11.2011, wherein the respondents were directed that treating the petitioners as Government employees, they shall be paid their salary, including all the post retiral dues and being aggrieved, the respondent assailed the same by way of an special appeal, which was dismissed and later on the two review petitions were dismissed, whereafter, the State approached the Apex Court, wherein the order was passed on 25.01.2023 and in compliance of the same, the State Government has passed the order on 27.03.2023.

¶20

When this Court examines the aforesaid matter, in its facts and law, it transpires that since the Apex Court while passing the order dated 25.01.2023 has clarified that the case of the petitioner shall be considered in the light of the Civil Appeal No.2167 of 2001 and thereafter, the Principal Secretary of

¶21

Cooperative Department vide the detailed order dated 27.03.2023, has complied with the same, though the contention of the petitioner is that there is no observation with respect to the aforesaid civil appeal and thus, the same was not considered. Since, the authority concerned has passed a detailed order while considering the status of the petitioners as was directed by the Apex Court whereby the petitioners were not found suitable to be paid their remunerations, while treating them as a Government servant and therefore, the same has rightly been rejected.

¶22

Consequently, this Court finds no merit in the contempt petition, hence, notices are discharged.

¶23

Contempt petition is hereby dismissed .

¶24

However, if the petitioners still feel aggrieved with the order dated 27.03.2023, they are at liberty to challenge the same before appropriate forum or Court.

¶25

consigned to record.

¶26

Order Date :- 4.1.2024 Mohd. Sharif

¶27

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD SHARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Girand Singh and Anr. v. M.V.S. Rami Reddy Prin. Secy. Cooperative Deptt. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Girand Singh and Anr. v. M.V.S. Rami Reddy Prin. Secy. Cooperative Deptt. and Ors.

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

Rajendra Pal Vs Sanjay Upadhayay Examination Regulatory Authority Prayagraj

Shrikrishna Vs Avneesh Kumar Awasthi Prin Secy Home/Addl.Chief Secy. Lko.

Badri Prasad Vs Shri Yogendra Kumar Sub Divisional Magistrate Teh.Haidergarh

Pramod Kumar Yadav Vs Manoj Kumar Rai, Tehsildar, Tehsil-Patti, Pratapgarh

Snt.Kamlesh Devi Vs Dr. Yogendra Kumar and Another

Kamal Ahmad and Anr. Vs Smt.Kinjal Singh and Anr.