Jainendra Kumar v. Shri Kamta Ram Pal, Addl. Director, Basic Education, U.P. Prayagraj

Allahabad HC29 Aug 2024CAPL/2674/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt application alleging wilful non-compliance with a writ court order quashing the applicant's transfer from Barabanki to Basti and a retaliatory fresh transfer. The court found the writ court's order had not been complied with in letter and spirit, noted the opposite party's pattern of non-compliance in other cases, and directed his personal appearance for framing of charge.

What the court decided

AI extract

Jainendra Kumar vs Shri Kamta Ram Pal, Addl. Director… — Contempt of Court | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 17

¶2

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 2674 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Jainendra Kumar Opposite Party :- Shri Kamta Ram Pal, Addl. Director, Basic Education, U.P. Prayagraj Counsel for Applicant :- Mayankar Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶5

1. On 23.08.2024, following order was passed:

¶6

"1. On 08.08.2024, following order was passed.

¶7

"1. Heard.

¶8

2. The affidavit of compliance filed by Mr. Kamta Ram Pal, Additional Director, Basic Education, Prayagraj is taken on record.

¶9

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant was working on the post of Block Education Officer in District Barabanki and was transferred from Barabanki to Basti on 18.2.2024, thereafter, said order was challenged before this Court in Writ A No.3234 of 2024, in which, transfer order dated 18.2.2024 was quashed.

¶10

4. Order dated 25.4.2024 passed in Writ A No.3234 of 2024 reads as under:-

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Ram Pratap Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents no. 1 to 3 and Shri Vijay Vikram Singh, learned counsel for the respondents no. 5. Notice on behalf of the respondent no. 4 has been accepted by Dr. Uday Veer Singh, Advocate. There is consensus at the Bar that the matter in issue is squarely covered by judgement and order of this Court dated 09.04.2023 passed in Writ A No. 2530 of 2024 in re: Ashwani Pratap Singh vs State of U.P. and others and the petitioner in the instant writ petition may be given the benefit of aforesaid judgement.

¶12

Keeping in view the aforesaid consensus the writ petition is allowed. It is provided that the petitioner shall be given the benefit of judgement of this Court in the case of Ashwani Pratap Singh (supra).

¶13

The transfer order of the petitioner dated 18.02.2024 passed by respondent no. 1, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the petition so far as it relates to the petitioner is quashed. Consequences to follow.

¶14

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that aforesaid order was passed after hearing learned counsel for the respondent, thereafter order was also communicated to the respondent authorities but the applicant was not allowed to resume the duties in District Barabanki. He submits that on 28.6.2024 an order was passed by Mr. Sanjay Yadav, Additional Director, Basic Education, Prayagraj, U.P. with the observation that in pursuance of the direction of the writ court dated 25.4.2024 the transfer order of the applicant relating to transferring him from Barbanki to Basti is cancelled but no order for resuming the duties is issued. He further submits that only with the intention to defy the order of the writ court on 30.6.2024 fresh transfer order was passed by Mr. Sanjay Yadav, Additional Director, Basic Education Board, U.P. Prayagraj, in which, applicant was placed at Sr. 34 and he was transferred from Basti to Bahraich, and this fact was pointed out by the applicant before Director, Basic Education, Lucknow, U.P. on 3.7.2024 but no proper attention is given.

¶15

6. Considering the contents of the contempt application as well as other enclosures as discussed above and the affidavit of compliance filed by respondent, it is evident that transfer order of the applicant dated 18.2.2024 was quashed by this Court but no formal order has been passed for resuming the duties at District Barabanki, formal order has been issued on 28.6.2024 that applicant's transfer order related to the transfer from Barabanki to Basti is cancelled and on 30.6.2024 fresh transfer order was passed which clearly shows that order of the writ court has not been complied with in letter and spirit and the authorities were trying to violate the order of the Court by passing the order dated 28.6.2024 as well as 30.6.2024.

¶16

7. List this case on 23.8.2024 at 11:30 A.M.

¶17

8. By the next date of listing, respondent is directed to re-visit earlier decision dated 28.6.2024 and pass a fresh order in terms of direction of the writ court, failing which, he shall appear for framing of charge."

¶18

2. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, no affidavit is filed by the respondent. It is informed by Shri Mohit Jauhari, learned Standing Counsel that instructions have been sent by the respondent in morning that the order has already been revisited on 21.08.2024. The aforesaid instructions are taken on record. 3. However, it is evident from the order dated 21.08.2024 passed by the respondent that the order of the writ Court has not been complied with in letter and spirit.

¶19

4. List this case on 29.08.2024 at 11.30 a.m.

¶20

5. On the next date, respondent no. 2 shall appear before this Court along with the explanation that why the order dated 21.08.2024 has not been placed before this Court along with the affidavit and shall also explain that why the charges shall not be framed against him for not complying the order of the writ Court in letter and spirit. "

¶21

2. Application for exemption is filed by learned counsel for the opposite party duly sworn in by opposite party- Shri Kamta Ram Pal, Addl. Director, Basic Education, U.P. Prayagraj. The same is taken on record. He submits that in pursuance of order dated 21.08.2024 passed by Hon'ble Mr. J.J. Munir, J. in Writ A No.11679 of 2024 and Hon'ble Mr. Salil Kumar Rai, J. in Contempt Application (Civil) No.6096 of 2022 at Allahabad High Court, opposite party was summoned today before the Court. Order dated 21.08.2024 and 09.08.2024 passed in aforesaid cases are as under:

¶22

21.08.2024

¶23

"Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11679 of 2024 Petitioner :- Rajiv Ranjan Respondent :- State Of Up And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kailash Singh Kushwaha Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶24

Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

¶25

On 06.08.2024, the following order was passed: "The petitioner, who is a Block Education Officer and is two years away

¶26

from retirement, seeks posting at his home district Prayagraj, after transfer from Jaunpur on ground that it is permissible under the State's transfer policy carried in paragraph No. 5 of the transfer policy dated 11.06.2024. The petitioner has represented his cause to the Additional Director of Education (Basic), Directorate of Education, U.P. Prayagraj vide representation dated 14.06.2024.

¶27

In the circumstances, the Additional Director of Education (Basic), Directorate of Education, U.P. Prayagraj is ordered to decided the petitioner's representation dated 14.06.2024 within a week and file his affidavit before this Court, annexing with it a copy of the decision rendered by him. Adjourned to 14.08.2024.

¶28

To be taken up as fresh. The Registrar (Compliance) is directed to communicate this order to the Additional Director of Education (Basic), Directorate of Education, U.P. Prayagraj through the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Allahabad within 24 hours next." This order was communicated by the Registrar (Compliance) through the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Allahabad.

¶29

The learned Civil Judge has submitted her report dated 13.08.2024 where it is certified that the orders of this Court were served upon the Dak Babu in the office of the Additional Director of Education (Basic), Directorate of Education, U.P., Prayagraj.Today, neither the personal affidavit of the Additional Director of Education (Basic) has been filed nor any other information placed before the Court to show that the petitioner 's representation dated 14.06.2024 has been decided. This matter is adjourned to 29.08.2024 as fresh to be taken up at 2.00 p.m. when the Additional Director of Education (Basic), Directorate of Education, U.P., Prayagraj shall appear in person before this Court and explain himself. Let this order be communicated to the Additional Director of Education (Basic), Directorate of Education, U.P., Prayagraj through the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad by the Registrar (Compliance) within 24 hours. "

¶30

09.08.2024

¶31

"Court No. - 1 Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 6096 of 2022 Applicant :- Umesh Kumar Sinha Opposite Party :- Ms. Anamika Singh, And 4 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Kartikeya Saran,Ujjawal Satsangi

¶32

Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.

¶33

1. The Additional Director Education (Basic), Government of U.P., Prayagraj is present in Court today and has filed an affidavit which does not disclose compliance of order passed by the Writ Court.

¶34

2. The compliance affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶35

3. It has been stated in the affidavit that a review application has been filed before the Supreme Court on 05.08.2024 for review of its order dismissing the special leave petition filed against the order of the Writ Court and the order of the Special Appellate Court.

¶36

4. A last opportunity is granted to the opposite parties i.e. the Additional Director of Basic Education (Basic), Government of U.P., Prayagraj to comply with the order passed by the Writ Court.

¶37

5. List again on 29.08.2024 on which date, the Additional Director of

¶38

Education shall either file compliance affidavit indicating full compliance of order passed by the Writ Court or shall produce any order passed by any competent court staying operation of the order passed by the Writ Court.

¶39

6. In case of failure to comply with the above direction, the Additional Director of Education (Basic), Prayagraj shall be present in the Court for framing of charges. "

¶40

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was transferred from Barabanki to Basti vide office order dated 18.02.2024 which was challenged in Writ A No.3234 of 2024 at Lucknow High Court, in which the order dated 18.02.2024 was quashed on 25.04.2024 but no formal order was passed by the opposite party. In retaliation, on 30.06.2024, an order was passed transferring the applicant from Basti to Behraich, thereafter, the present contempt application was filed on 10.07.2024 which was taken up on 15.07.2024 and following order was passed:

¶41

"1. Heard.

¶42

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order dated 25.04.2024 passed by this Court in Writ-A No. 3234 of 2024 has been wilfully defied by the respondent.

¶43

3. List this case on 23.07.2024 as fresh.

¶44

4. In the meantime, Shri Sunil Bajpai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel shall seek written instructions from the respondent about the fact that why the order of the Writ Court has not been complied with.

¶45

5. Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to provide a copy of the contempt application to learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, forthwith. "

¶46

4. Thereafter, only to cover up the mistake, the opposite party corrected the order dated 30.06.2024, in which, it is shown that applicant is transferred from Barabanki to Bahraich but no formal order was passed in pursuance of the direction of Writ Court dated 25.04.2024.

¶47

5. In view of the above, it is evident from the orders passed in different cases at Allahabad High Court that the applicant is habitual in violating the order.

¶48

6. Accordingly, list this case on 04.09.2024 at 11:30 AM.

¶49

7. On the next date, opposite party shall appear in person before this Court for framing of charge.

¶50

Order Date :- 29.8.2024 V. Sinha

¶51

Digitally signed by :- VAISHALI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Jainendra Kumar v. Shri Kamta Ram Pal, Addl. Director, Basic Education, U.P. Prayagraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Jainendra Kumar v. Shri Kamta Ram Pal, Addl. Director, Basic Education, U.P. Prayagraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Laxmi Narayan Shukla @ Laxmi Narayan vs Bijay Kumar Trivedi, S.D.M., Barabanki

Shri Jagat Bihari Misra vs Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Distt. Inspector of Schools, Raebareli

Ranjeet Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Education Lko. and 5 Others

Satish Chandra Kardam vs Shri Ravi Ranjan, Managing Director U.P. State Agro Industrial Corporation Ltd. Lko. and Another

Jitendra Kumar Singh vs Smt. Manisha Trighatia, Commissioner and Secy. Board of Revenue, Lko.

Smt. Manju Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Co-Operative Societies, Lko. and 5 Others