Disposed

Rajendra Kumar v. Sri Akhilesh Pratap Singh, Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikarie, Sitapur

Allahabad HC7 Nov 2024CAPL/2775/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt application over non-compliance with a writ court order directing payment of salary arrears. The opposite party filed a false affidavit seeking exemption from personal appearance. The court found prima facie wilful disobedience and issued notice of charge under Rule 5 of Chapter XXXV-E for reply.

What did the court decide?

Notice of contempt charge issued to the opposite party, who must appear in person and submit a reply by 18.11.2024.

Rajendra Kumar vs Sri Akhilesh Pratap Singh, Zila Basic… — Contempt of Court | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 6

¶2

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 2775 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Rajendra Kumar Opposite Party :- Sri Akhilesh Pratap Singh, Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikarie, Sitapur Counsel for Applicant :- Girish Chandra Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- Rishabh Tripathi

¶4

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Girish Chandra Verma, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Rishabh Tripathi, learned counsel for the opposite party.

¶6

Entire Conspectus of the proceedings have been recorded in the previous order dated 07.11.2024, of this Court which quoted herein below :-

¶7

" 1. Heard Shri Girish Chandra Verma, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Shri Rishabh Tripathi, learned counsel for the sole opposite party.

¶8

2. In the present contempt petition, it was submitted that the order of the writ court dated 02.02.2024 passed in Writ-A No.485 of 2024 (Rajendra Kumar versus State of U.P. and others) had not been complied with and consequently, notices were issued to the opposite party for compliance.

¶9

3. Despite the notices issued by this Court, the compliance was not made while, on the other hand, application for deferment of the contempt proceedings were filed by the opposite party, which were rejected by this Court vide order dated 05.09.2024 and the opposite parties are further directed to file affidavit of compliance, failing which, he was directed to appear in person before this Court.

¶10

4. On the next date i.e. on 26.09.2024, the opposite party did not appear nor did he file any affidavit of compliance but his counsel sought further time for filing the affidavit of compliance on the ground that the same could not be prepared and consequently, the case was directed to be listed on 03.10.2024.

¶11

5. When the case was next taken up on 24.10.2024, this Court was informed that the payment of the current month for an amount of Rs.21367/- had been transferred through treasury to the account of the applicant by the Finance and Accounts Officer, Basic Shiksha, Sitapur and it is further recorded that the arrears in compliance of the order passed by the writ court shall be calculated and adjusted expeditiously and ten days' time was granted for the same, failing which, the opposite party was directed to appear before this Court.

¶12

6. Today when the matter has been taken up, an affidavit has been filed alongwith application for exemption stating that he cannot appear before this Court on the ground of ill health. The said application has been signed on 04.11.2024. Apart from the above, it is noticed that the affidavit was sworn on 06.11.2024 and it seems that he was present in this Court on

¶13

06.11.2024 before the Oath Commissioner when the said affidavit was sworn on 06.11.2024 as well and at the other place it is shown to be sworn on 04.11.2024 while in paragraph 8, a bill dated 06.11.2024 has been annexed, which clearly indicates that the said affidavit was prepared and sworn definitely after 06.11.2024.

¶14

7. From the aforesaid it is clear that apart from not complying with the directions of this Court or patently false affidavit has been filed before this Court and despite non-compliance he had the courage of filing a false application seeking exemption from personal appearance.

¶15

8. Shri Girish Chandra Verma, learned counsel for the applicant has submited that the applicant was entitled to minimum pay-scale since 02.02.2024 and the entire amount would be somewhere around Rs.1,90,000/- out of which an amount slightly more than Rs.1,00,000/only has been paid while still Rs.90,000/- still remains to be paid.

¶16

9. Previous orders of this Court extremely clear in its terms that in case, order of the writ court has not been complied with the opposite party shall appear in person.

¶17

10. From the above, we have no doubt that the order of the writ court has neither been complied with nor has the opposite party appeared in person.

¶18

11. Such deliberate acts of defiance and filing false affidavits cannot go unnoticed. Let the sole opposite party i.e. Shri Akhilesh Pratap Singh, Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari, District Sitapur shall appear before this Court tomorrow morning at 10.15 A.M.

¶19

12. The Superintendent of Police, Sitapur shall ensure presence of the opposite party before this Court tomorrow.

¶20

13. Learned Standing Counsel shall communicate this order to the Chief Medical Officer as well as the Superintendent of Police for compliance.

¶21

14. List/ Put up this matter tomorrow i.e. 08.11.2024. "

¶22

It is in aforesaid circumstances that the Oath Commissioner Sri R. K. Verma was asked to appear before this Court and produce the records by which it could be demonstrated that the deponent had appeared before him at the time of swearing of the affidavit where two dates are indicated namely 4 and 6.11.2024.

¶23

Sri R. K. Verma has informed that entry was never made in the register and he has not even produced copy of the register maintained by him. The manner in which the aforesaid Oath Commissioner has proceeded to swear the affidavits clearly demonstrates that he has not adhered to the rules in this regard.

¶24

Accordingly, Senior Registrar is directed to immediately look into the aforesaid facts, inquire into the matter and pass appropriate orders thereon.

¶25

This Court further directed the opposite party to appear in person, in compliance of which he has appeared before this Court. Despite repeated directions order of the writ Court has not been complied with and all attempts have been made for defying not even the order of writ Court but even the orders of

¶26

appearance passed in the present writ petition. Even the application for exemption purportedly filed on 04.11.2024 is also conspicuous and reasons have also been stated by us in the previous order dated 07.11.2024.

¶27

Despite sufficient time having been granted order of writ Court has still not been complied with, leading us to inevitable conclusion that opposite is prima facie guilty of willful and deliberate disobedience of writ Court's order dated 02.02.2024.

¶28

Having heard counsel for the applicant and perusing the record, I am satisfied that a case is made out under Rule 5 of Chapter XXXV-E of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 (Rules framed under Section 23 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971) requiring to call upon contemnor opposite party Shri Akhilesh Pratap Singh, Zila Basic Shiksha Akhikari, Sitapur to submit his reply in person or through counsel to the following charge:-

¶29

"Why contemnor opposite party Shri Akhilesh Pratap Singh, Zila Basic Shiksha Akhikari, Sitapur be not punished for willful and deliberate non compliance of the judgment and order of writ Court dated 02.02.2024, passed in Writ - A No. 485 of 2024 (Rajendra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Others)."

¶30

Notices be issued fixing 18.11.2024. Let necessary Steps be taken within a week.

¶31

List on 18.11.2024 for hearing. On the next date opposite party shall appear in person before this Court.

¶32

Let reply be filed by the opposite party to the aforesaid charge by the next date fixed.

¶33

Order Date :- 8.11.2024

¶34

A. Verma

¶35

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶36

Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rajendra Kumar v. Sri Akhilesh Pratap Singh, Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikarie, Sitapur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Kumar v. Sri Akhilesh Pratap Singh, Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikarie, Sitapur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Amar Singh vs Dr. M.K. Sanmunga Sunaram, Addl. Chief Secy./ Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Basic Education Lko. and Others

Saurabh Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Ram Ratan Vs Ram Lakhan

Niyamat vs Sri Sanjay Mishra Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Distt. Gonda

Krishna Kant Sharma vs Sri Prakash Bindu, Managing Director U.P. State Construction and Infrastructure Deve. Corp.Ltd.Lko.

Lale Alias Gulshan Alias Buddhu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and 4 Others