Disposed

Shakuntla Devi v. Sanjay Tiwari, District Basic Education Officer, Amethi

Allahabad HC7 May 2024CAPL/1866/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt application over non-compliance with writ court directions to decide the applicant's representation regarding promotional pay scale. The court rejected the respondent's fresh affidavit of compliance as based on mere presumption that the service record was untraceable and eligibility unproved, granted time to revisit the decision, and warned of personal appearance and framing of charges on

What the court decided

AI extract

Shakuntla Devi vs Sanjay Tiwari, District Basic… — Contempt of Court | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 17

¶2

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 1866 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Shakuntla Devi

¶4

Opposite Party :- Sanjay Tiwari, District Basic Education Officer, Amethi Counsel for Applicant :- Durga Prasad Shukla,Garima Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

On 15.07.2024, following order was passed.

¶7

"1. Heard.

¶8

Affidavit of compliance filed by Mr. Sanjay Tiwari, District Basic Education Officer, Amethi is taken on record.

¶9

Shri Sailendra Singh Rajawant, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that there was a direction to decide the representation of the applicant and the same has already been decided.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the representation of the applicant is not considered by deciding the facts mentioned in the representation as it is decided by saying that at particular point of time, the applicant was working under District Basic Education Officer, Sultanpur, hence, it is appropriate that he should decided his case.

¶11

As point related to the juniors of the applicant, namely, Shiv Shankar Yadav and Bharat Kumar Dwivedi and other facts were not considered by the respondent, the affidavit of compliance filed by the respondent is hereby rejected.

¶12

List this case on 05.08.2024 at 11:30 A.M.

¶13

By the next date of listing, the respondent is directed to file fresh affidavit of compliance by revisiting the earlier decision and he shall enclose his decision with the fresh affidavit, failing which, he shall appear in person before this Court."

¶14

Today, a fresh affidavit of compliance is filed by the respondent-Mr. Sanjay Tiwari with the averment that the claim of the applicant has been denied vide order dated 02.08.2024 on the ground that the relevant service record of the applicant is not traceable. In the said order, a presumption has also been made that the promotional pay scale could not be given to the incumbent, in case, he is not having 12 years of satisfactory service or any departmental proceeding is pending.

¶15

However, no evidence has been discussed in the said order that either the applicant was not having 12 years of satisfactory service or any departmental or criminal proceeding is pending against her and it appears that the

¶16

decision has been taken by the respondent merely on the basis of presumption.

¶17

In such circumstances, the affidavit of compliance is hereby rejected.

¶18

Though this Court is going to impose cost looking to the action of the respondent, but on the request of Shri S.S. Rajawat, the same is not being imposed and liberty is given to the respondent to revisit his decision in terms of the directions of the writ Court and file a fresh affidavit of compliance by the next date.

¶19

List this case on 21.08.2024 at 11.30 a.m.

¶20

In case, affidavit of compliance is not filed by the next date, the respondent shall appear before this Court for framing of charges.

¶21

Order Date :- 5.8.2024 VKS

¶22

Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shakuntla Devi v. Sanjay Tiwari, District Basic Education Officer, Amethi

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Shakuntla Devi v. Sanjay Tiwari, District Basic Education Officer, Amethi

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Supriya Pandey Vs Yatendra Pal Singh, Addl. Civil Judge Junior Division, Pratapgarh

Asha Ram Singh Vs Sri Himanshu Kumar Addl. Chief Secy. Rural Development Deptt. U.P. Lko.

Smt. Tara Devi and Others Vs Ram Janak Singh

Hamid vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Babadeen @ Arun vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Raja Ram vs Sanjeev Sharan, D.M. / Collector, Pratapgarh