Dismissed

Mohd.Naeem Khan v. Sri Suresh Chandra Prin.Secy. Irrigation U.P. Lko. and 2 Ors.

Allahabad HC5 Dec 2024CAPL/850/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt application regarding non-compliance of an order mandating regular salary payment, the court held that the applicant absented himself from service after June 1996. Consequently, no issue of non-compliance arose for the subsequent period, and the application was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Contempt application dismissed; notice discharged.

Mohd.Naeem Khan Vs Sri Suresh Chandra… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:81406

¶2

Court No. - 17

¶3

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 850 of 2017

¶4

Applicant :- Mohd.Naeem Khan Opposite Party :- Sri Suresh Chandra Prin.Secy. Irrigation U.P. Lko. And 2 Ors. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Waseem,Adnan Ahmad,Humayun Mirza,Shafiq Mirza

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶6

The present contempt application has been preferred for non-compliance of the judgment and order dated 12.12.2013, passed in Service Single No. 255 of 1996, along with Service Single No. 7678 of 1991 filed by the applicant and another person in re: Mohd. Naeem Khan and another versus State of U.P and others for quashing of the notification dated 20.02.1992, whereby the nomenclature of the post of the applicant was changed and in place of regular salary, they were paid honararium and Service Single No. 7678 of 1991 was preferred by the applicant when he was disengaged from the service in which an interim order was granted.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that this Court while deciding the above mentioned writ petitions, had granted the benefit of the judgment passed in Writ Petition No. 3558 (S/S) of 1992 ; Suresh Chandra Tiwari and others. The respondents had paid the regular salary to the applicant till June, 1996 whereas, the applicant had superannuated in the year 2017 after attaining the age of superannuation. Hence, the applicant is entitled for regular salary since July, 1996, till the date of his retirement in the year 2017, which has not been paid and that amounts to willful disobedience of the judgment and order dated 12.12.2013.

¶8

It is further submitted that against the judgment and order dated 12.12.2013, a Special Appeal No. 168 of 2014 was preferred by the State which was disposed of by order dated 12.10.2015 with a modification in the judgment and order dated 12.12.2013, against which the review was preferred, which was dismissed on 30.05.2016.

¶9

Against the order in the Special appeal and the review, an S.L.P was preferred before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was dismissed on 01.09.2017, against which a review was preferred, which was also dismissed on 24.07.2018. Hence, the judgment and order attained finality and the applicant is entitled for the salary till the date of his superannuation.

¶10

It is further submitted that in all these proceedings,

¶11

availed by the respondents against the judgment and order dated 12.12.2013, it has been mentioned that after 1996, the applicant had not come apart from other grounds and dismissal of the further proceedings, uptill the Hon'ble Supreme Court amounts to not accepting the ground taken by the respondents that the petitioner had worked uptill 1996.

¶12

On the other hand, learned State Counsel has submitted that the above mentioned submission regarding the continuance of service of the applicant was one of the grounds whereas, as the main thrust was against the judgment in the case of Suresh Chandra Tiwari and others, whereby the notification was quashed and a direction was issued for payment of regular salary to the Tubewell Operators and the S.L.P preferred against the judgment in the case of Suresh Chandra Tiwari and others preferred by the State was also dismissed.

¶13

It is further submitted that it is a specific pleading in the afÏdavits filed in the present contempt that the applicant had relinquished his services after June 1996 and after relinquishment of the job, the other person had been appointed in place of the applicant and the records of the same has been enclosed along with an afÏdavit dated 28.02.2024 in the present contempt case. Hence, the salary was paid to the applicant in compliance of the judgment and order dated 12.12.2013, till he had worked in the department, so there is no non-compliance of the judgment and order dated 12.12.2013 and the present contempt application is liable to be dismissed and notice to be discharged.

¶14

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, going through the records of the case and several afÏdavits exchanged between the parties, it is found that the respondents have come with a specific case in their afÏdavits that after June, 1996, the applicant had relinquished his job and he had never come to join the same. The said averment made in the afÏdavits filed by the respondents, the applicant filed the objections therein, and the applicant had simply stated that he had retired in the year 2017 and whenever the work was required, he was called by the respondents and the records are with the ofÏcials.

¶15

On being asked from learned counsel for the applicant whether the applicant had made any representation to the authority who had to permit him to continue or to any higher authority that the OfÏcer is not permitting him to continue, though the interim order is in existence, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a representation was made on 19.04.2017 for compliance of the judgment and order dated 12.12.2013 and 18.05.1994 in the case of Suresh Chandra Tiwari and others, and in paragraph-5, it has specifically been mentioned that the

¶16

applicant may be taken back in the service in compliance of the judgments, meaning thereby, the representation for compliance of the judgment and order dated 12.12.2013 was made on 19.04.2017 for the first time, whereas, the age of superannuation/retirement of the applicant was in the year 2017, meaning thereby that the applicant had never ever approached any of the authorities with a case that he was not permitted to join by the authorities and he has not filed any document that he had worked after 1996, till the date of his superannuation. Apart from that, by making a representation on 19.04.2017 that he may be permitted to join, supports the case of the respondents taken in the afÏdavit that after 1996, the applicant had not come.

¶17

In view of the facts, circumstances and discussion made hereinabove, no contempt is made out since the applicant absented himself after June 1996 and till that period he was paid regular salary, therefore, the question of compliance of the order dated 12.12.2013 never arose and he had approached the authorities on 19.04.2017 for joining and payment of salary i.e. the year in which he had admittedly retired.

¶18

The present contempt application is devoid of merits hence dismissed .

¶19

Notice, if any, stands discharged.

¶20

Order Date :- 5.12.2024 DiVYa

¶21

Digitally signed by :- DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mohd.Naeem Khan v. Sri Suresh Chandra Prin.Secy. Irrigation U.P. Lko. and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd.Naeem Khan v. Sri Suresh Chandra Prin.Secy. Irrigation U.P. Lko. and 2 Ors.

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

Anurag Singh Vs Dr. Vinod Kumar Singh, Registrar Lko. University Lko.

Virendra Kumar Baghel Vs Sri Akhilesh Pratap Singh, Distt. Basic Education Officer, Sitapur and Another

Smt. Renu Devi Vs Shri Vijay Pratap Singh, Distt. Basic Education Officer Hardoi and Another

Saurabh Sahu and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Aniruddh Singh vs Dr. Jitendra Kumar Tomar, Director, Agriculture, Lucknow and Another

Shiv Mangal and 2 Ors. Vs Shitla Prasad and 2 Ors.