Dismissed

Avdhesh Kumar Singh v. Mr. Hemant Rao, Prin. Secy. to Backward Classes Welfare Deptt., Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC13 Oct 2025/1542/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this contempt application, the High Court dismissed the petition as infructuous. The court held that the department had forwarded a requisition for driver posts with the applicant's name and a recommendation for 20 years of service weightage, considering the judgment complied with.

What did the court decide?

Contempt application dismissed as infructuous; applicant advised to avail alternative legal remedies if aggrieved.

Avdhesh Kumar Singh Vs Mr. Hemant Rao, Prin. Secy. to… — Contempt of Court | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 1542 of 2023

Avdhesh Kumar Singh

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

Mr. Hemant Rao, Prin. Secy. To Backward Classes Welfare Deptt., Lko. And Another

¶7

.....Opposite Party(s)

¶8

Counsel for Applicant(s)	: I.M.	Pandey Ist
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Shiv Chau	Prasad Kushwaha, Brajesh Kumar dhary

¶9

Court No. - 8

¶10

HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J.

¶11

(C.M.A. No. 4 of 2024)

¶12

This is an application seeking impleadment of Shri Manoj Kumar Sagar, the Secretary, U.P. State Commission for Backward Classes IIIrd Floor, Indira Bhawan, Lucknow as respondent no.3 in the present case.

¶13

Reasons shown in the accompanying affidavit filed in support of the instant application are found to be satisfactory.

¶14

Application is allowed .

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to implead Shri Manoj Kumar Sagar, the Secretary, U.P. State Commission for Backward Classes IIIrd Floor, Indira Bhawan, Lucknow as respondent no. 3 in the array of the respondents of the present case during the course of the day.

¶16

(Order on contempt petition)

¶17

No separate notice is to be issued as respondent no. 3 has already put in appearance by filing compliance affidavit, which is on the record.

¶18

Present contempt application has been preferred for alleged non-compliance of the judgment and order dated 02.01.2023 passed by Writ Court in Writ A No. 2066 of 2014 and connected matter. The relevant extract of the said judgment and order dated 02.01.2023 is quoted hereinbelow:-

¶19

"Considering the first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he should be considered for appointment alongwith the other suitable

¶20

CAPL No. 1542 of 2023

¶21

¶22

candidates, however, he should be given the weightage for the services rendered for the last 20 years, the same deserves acceptance as the petitioner has worked on contractual basis for more than 20 years and leaving the petitioner high and dry at this stage would be clearly arbitrary, thus, taking a cue from the directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of University of Delhi (supra), the present petition is disposed off directing the respondents to make fresh efforts for appointment to the post of Driver and while doing so, adequate weightage shall be given to services rendered by the petitioner and any other similarly placed employees, if any.

¶23

With regard to the second contention, clearly the payment of Rs.4,500/- to the petitioner since the year 2002 cannot be accepted as reasonable. Although the payments made to the petitioner may not qualify as 'other forms of forced labour', there is no reason why the respondents would not pay the minimum of pay scale as prescribed by the State to be paid to the Group D posts which is also justified on the ground of equal pay for equal work, thus, the petition with regard to the second prayer is allowed holding that the petitioner shall be entitled for the minimum of the pay scale which is payable to the services rendered by similarly placed employees/Drivers in the State of U.P., which shall be paid to the petitioner after computation within a period of four months from today."

¶24

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the second part of the judgment and order of the Writ Court has been complied with as the minimum pay-scale has been given to the applicant whereas the first part of the judgment and order has not been complied with whereby the direction has been issued that applicant be given regular appointment on the post of Driver by giving weightage of 20 years contractual service. This is nothing but non-compliance of the judgment and order of the Writ Court dated 02.01.2023.

¶25

On the other hand, learned State Counsel has submitted that the requisition has been sent for doing exercise for making regular appointment on two vacant posts of Driver by giving weightage of 20 years contractual service to the applicant and the matter is under process between different departments of State Government.

¶26

It is further submitted that there is no direction or writ issued by the Writ Court for giving regular appointment to the applicant within a stipulated time frame.

¶27

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the material available on record, it is found that the Writ Court by its judgment and order dated 02.01.2023 has given two directions, out of which, the second one, which pertains to the payment of minimum of pay-scale has been complied with and the first direction i.e. only with regard to the giving adequate weightage of 20 years of contractual service to the applicant while making fresh efforts for appointment on the post of Driver has also been complied with as the department while forwarding the requisition for appointment on the post of driver, the name of applicant has been forwarded for

¶28

CAPL No. 1542 of 2023

¶29

¶30

consideration with recommendation weightage of 20 years service. It is not the case of the applicant that the requisitioned vacancies have already been filled without considering the candidature of the applicant in the light of the judgment and order dated 02.01.2023. The matter is under process and going on and there is no positive direction by the Writ Court for making regular appointment of the applicant thus, the judgment and order of the Writ Court dated 02.01.2023 has been complied with.

¶31

In view of the aforesaid, the present contempt application has become infructuous.

¶32

As such, the present contempt application is dismissed as infructuous. However, if the applicant is still aggrieved, he may avail the remedy as may be permissible under the law.

¶33

Notice issued, if any, stands discharged.

¶34

October 13, 2025 Ashish

¶35

(Manish Kumar,J.)

¶36

Digitally signed by :- ASHISH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Avdhesh Kumar Singh v. Mr. Hemant Rao, Prin. Secy. to Backward Classes Welfare Deptt., Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Avdhesh Kumar Singh v. Mr. Hemant Rao, Prin. Secy. to Backward Classes Welfare Deptt., Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sandeep Kumar Gautam Vs Sri Dr. Mahendra Dev, Director of Education Secondary U.P. Lko.

Reeta Devi Vs Akanksha Gautam, Sub Division Magistrate, Laharpur Sitapur

Atam Prakash Mishra Vs Sri Om Prakash Tripathi, Distt. Inspector of Schools Barabanki

Sandeep Vs Rajesh Kumar Maurya Chief Manager (Hr) State Bank of India Administrative Office, Lucknow

Aleem Ahmad and Another Vs Dimpal Verma Prin. Secy. Basic Edu. U.P. Govt. and Ors.

Jalal Ahmad Vs Garav Kumar, Municipal Commissioner, Lko. Municipal Corporation Lko.