Disposed

Shailendra Kumar Shukla v. Shri M. Devraj, Prin. Secy. Technical Education, Technical Education Directorate, Kanpur

Allahabad HC27 Aug 2024CAPL/991/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this contempt application, the court rejected the affidavit of compliance filed by the Principal Secretary. It noted that a representation from the applicant was erroneously ignored in favor of another representation (Ajay Kumar). The matter was listed again for further proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Rejection of the affidavit of compliance; listing for further proceedings and requiring communication to the official.

Shailendra Kumar Shukla vs Shri M. Devraj, Prin. Secy… — Contempt of Court | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 17

¶2

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 991 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Shailendra Kumar Shukla Opposite Party :- Shri M. Devraj, Prin. Secy. Technical Education, Technical Education Directorate, Kanpur Counsel for Applicant :- Ramesh Kumar Srivastava

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶5

On 06.08.2024, following order was passed:

¶6

"1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant.

¶7

2. The present application has been filed with the prayer to summon and prosecute the respondent for deliberately and willfully defying the order dated 23.02.2023 passed by Writ Court in Writ A No.7206/2022.

¶8

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has filed application for rejection of compliance report filed by respondent- Shri M. Devraj, Principal Secretary, Technical Education, State of U.P., Lucknow, which is taken on record. He has submitted that grievance of the applicant was not being considered, as a result, Writ A No.7206/2022 was filed which was disposed of on 23.02.2023 with the following order: "Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

¶9

The petitioners, who are working as a Guest Lecturer in Government Polytechnic, have approached this Court claiming that they are entitled for minimum of pay scale and also for regularization.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he is not pressing his prayer no.(i) and prays that representation of the petitioners for the said purposes may be directed to be considered and decided in a time bound manner.

¶11

Learned Standing Counsel has no objection to the same.

¶12

In view thereof, petitioners are permitted to make a fresh detailed representation to respondent no.1-Principal Secretary, Technical Education, Civil Secretariat, Lucknow, raising all their grievance, annexing therewith a copy of this writ petition along with annexures and all the documents in support of their claim within a period of three weeks from today along with a certified copy of this order.

¶13

In case such a representation is moved by petitioners, respondent no.1 shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law by a reasoned and speaking order within a period of three months from the date, a certified copy of this order along with representation is placed before him.

¶14

It is made clear that this court has not applied itself on the merits of the case and all questions are left open to be considered and decided by the competent authority in accordance with law.

¶15

With the aforesaid directions, present writ petition is disposed of. "

¶16

4. After the pronouncement of the aforesaid order, every petitioner individually filed representation and the applicant filed his representation along with certified copy of the aforesaid order on 30.05.2024 before the respondent but the same was not decided, as a result, present contempt application was filed and notice was issued, thereafter, affidavit of compliance was filed by respondent annexing the office order dated 05.04.2023 which was passed by Shri Shubham Chandra Sharma, the then

¶17

Principal Secretary, Technical Education, State of U.P., Lucknow. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that there was no application of mind at the time of deciding the representation of the applicant, as in the aforesaid order, it is mentioned that the representation was moved by Shri Ajay Kumar, Guest Instructor, Gorakhpur and in the last paragraph of the order dated 05.04.2023, it is mentioned that representation of the Shri Ajay Kumar, Guest Instructor, Gorakhpur was not found suitable, accordingly, it was rejected.

¶18

6. Considering the contents of the affidavit of compliance, application for rejection of compliance report filed today as well as office order dated 05.04.2023, it is clearly revealed that the representation of the applicant has not been decided in terms of the direction of Writ Court. Accordingly, the affidavit of compliance filed by respondent- M. Devraj, Principal Secretary, Technical Education, State of U.P., Lucknow is hereby rejected.

¶19

7. List this case on 22.08.2024 at 11:30 AM.

¶20

8. On the next date, fresh affidavit of compliance be filed, failing which, respondent shall appear in person before this Court. "

¶21

Affidavit of compliance filed by Shri Sunil Bajpai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel duly sworn in by respondent- Shri M. Devraj, Principal Secretary, Technical Education, Technical Education Directorate, Kanpur is taken on record. He has submitted that order of Writ Court has been complied with, therefore, the contempt proceedings may be dropped.

¶22

It is evident from the affidavit of compliance filed today that the order dated 16.08.2024 is passed by the Shri Prabhakar Chandra Mishr, General Secretary, Technical Education, Technical Education Directorate, Kanpur but the order of Writ Court clearly reveals that direction was issued to the Principal Secretary, Technical Education, Technical Education Directorate, Kanpur to decide the representation of the applicant. In such circumstances, the affidavit of compliance filed today is hereby rejected.

¶23

Shri Sunil Bajpai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel requested that the matter may be taken up after two days.

¶24

The prayer made is allowed.

¶25

Accordingly, list this case on 27.08.2024 at 11:30 AM.

¶26

On the next date, it shall be informed by Shri Prabhakar Chandra Mishr, General Secretary, Technical Education, Technical Education Directorate, Kanpur that under what circumstances, he has passed the order when there was clear direction of the Writ Court to the Principal Secretary, Technical Education, Technical Education Directorate, Kanpur to decide the representation of the applicant.

¶27

Shri Sunil Bajpai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel

¶28

is directed to communicate this order to the official concerned. Order Date :- 22.8.2024 V. Sinha

¶29

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

Shailendra Kumar Shukla v. Shri M. Devraj, Prin. Secy. Technical Education, Technical Education Directorate, Kanpur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shailendra Kumar Shukla v. Shri M. Devraj, Prin. Secy. Technical Education, Technical Education Directorate, Kanpur

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

M/S J.P. Nirman and Company,Barabanki Thru. Its Proprietor Jay Prakash Pandey vs U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Govt. of India Ministry of Labour and Deptt. of Employment,New Delhi and 2 Ors.

Sonal Maurya vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Secondary Education U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Balighur Rahman vs Waqf Tribunal, U.P. Lucknow, Thru. Chairman and 6 Others

Ajroon Nisha vs Nayab Tehsildar Masaudha, Tehsil- Sohawal, Ayodhya, and 2 Others

Mohd. Shaan vs Addl. Commissioner Administration, Lucknow and Others

Om Prakash Tripathi vs Naib Tehsildar,Ram Nagar, Tehsil Alapur, Ambedkar Nagar and Others