Mohammed Mujeeb Alam Khan vs Shri Ranjan Kumar Prin. Secy. Ayush ANUBHAG-1 Lko. and Another

Court No. - 17

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 1108 of 2025

Applicant :- Mohammed Mujeeb Alam Khan Opposite Party :- Shri Ranjan Kumar Prin. Secy. Ayush Anubhag-1 Lko. And Another

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Tauseef Siddiqui,Shiv Pratap Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

Heard.

¶7

The instant contempt application has been filed by the applicant alleging disobedience of the order dated 16.01.2025 passed in Writ-A No. 338 of 2025.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as the grievance of the applicant was not considered, he preferred a writ petition i.e. WritA No. 338 of 2025, which was disposed of on 16.01.2025. He further submits that the aforesaid order was served on the respondents through registered post on 20.01.2025, but till today, respondent no.1 has not taken any decision on the representation of the applicant as ordered by the writ Court.

¶9

The order dated 16.01.2025 passed in Writ-A No. 338 of 2025 is as under:-

¶10

"1. Heard Sri Mohammad Tauseef Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and perused the material available on record.

¶11

2. By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed the following relief:-

¶12

"i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding directing the opposite parties to pay post retiral dues and pensionary benefits to the Petitioner by counting his ad-hoc services rendered by him w.e.f. 16.05.1991 in the department along with arrears and interest within the time stipulated by this Hon'ble Court.

¶13

ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding directing the opposite parties to pay post retiral dues and pensionary benefits to the Petitioner by counting his ad-hoc services as has been paid to the other similarly situated employees/Pharmacist of the department alongwith arrear and interest with the time stipulated by this Hon'ble Court.

¶14

iii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite parties to make the payment of post retiral dues and

¶15

pension w.e.f. date of his initial appointment of the Petitioner as per provision of the Uttar Pradesh Qualifying Service for Pension and Validation Act, 2021."

¶16

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Pharmacist on ad-hoc basis against substantive post. Later on, his services has been regularised with effect from 06.06.2007. Therefore, the direction may be issued to the opposite parties to pay post retiral to dues and pensionary benefits to the petitioner by counting his ad-hoc services rendered by him with effect from 16.05.1991. He has further submitted that in the similar matters, the Single Judges have passed the orders in favour of the petitioner and challenging those orders the special appeals are pending. One Special Appeal No. 152 of 2021, page 43, whereby, the special appeal was dismissed, the State filed SLP before the Apex Court, page 47, which was also dismissed vide order dated 11.07.2022, however, in some cases, the special appeals are still pending consideration before this Court and the State Government/competent authority has complied with the orders subject to the final outcome of the appeal.

¶17

4. Learned Standing counsel has drawn attention of this Court towards one Special Appeal No. 165 of 2022, State of UP Vs. Gulam Sarver, wherein, the judgement passed by this Court in re: Awadhesh Kumar Singh (Supra) has been considered and while considering the aforesaid judgement, the Division Bench has observed that the Single Judge deciding the case in re:Awadhesh Kumar Singh (Supra) has not decided correctly the provision of law. The order of the Single Judge in re: Gulam Sarver has been stayed. Learned Standing counsel has informed that the special appeal in re:Awadhesh Kumar Singh (Supra) bearing Special Appeal No. 180 of 2022 is also pending consideration.

¶18

5. On that the learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the special appeals where an employee was appointed on ad-hoc basis against substantive vacancy and his/her services has been regularised later on, his/her appointment has not been treated in derogation of Section 2 of U.P. Qualifying Service for Pension and Validation Act. Therefore, no interim order has been granted by the Division Bench in this those cases. He has also submitted that the Division Bench of this Court has not observed that the order in re:Awadhesh Kumar Singh (Supra) is not proper but it was the submission being considered by the Division Bench. He has also submitted that in the case of Gulam Sarver and Awadhesh Kumar Singh, etc. the payment has been made subject to the outcome of the special appeal. Therefore, he has submitted that the same order may be passed in the present case also.

¶19

6. Having considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material on record, I hereby dispose of this petition finally at the admission stage and without entering into the merits of the issue, liberty is given to the petitioner to prefer a fresh representation to the opposite party no.1, ventilating his grievance taking all pleas and grounds which are available with him enclosing therewith the copy of his earlier representation, if any, which are necessary for disposal of the representation within a period of fifteen days from today and appropriate decision may be taken

¶20

within a period of six weeks by speaking and reasoned order, strictly in accordance with law and also in the same manner the benefit has been extended to the identically placed employee subject to the final outcome of the special appeal."

¶21

Sri Ram Swaroop, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent no.2 has placed written instructions duly signed by Prof. Jamal Akhtar, Director, Unani Services, U.P., Lucknow/respondent no.2 dated 16.04.2025 and has submitted that in pursuance of the directions of the writ Court, the decision has already been taken by respondent no.2 on 11.03.2025 and the said order is also placed before this Court.

¶22

It is evident from the aforesaid order placed before this Court by Sri Ram Swaroop that it was passed by respondent no.2, but there was a direction of the writ Court to the State Government to take decision on the representation of the petitioner ventilating his grievance taking all pleas and grounds which are available with him enclosing therewith the copy of his earlier representation, if any, which are necessary for disposal of the representation within a period of fifteen days from today and appropriate decision may be taken within a period of six weeks by speaking and reasoned order, strictly in accordance with law and also in the same manner the benefit has been extended to the identically placed employee subject to the final outcome of the special appeal.

¶23

7. List this case on 23.04.2025 as fresh.

¶24

In the meantime, Sri Ram Swaroop, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent no.2 shall seek written instructions from respondent no.1 that why the order of the writ Court has not been complied with till today.

¶25

Respondent no.2 is also directed to file an affidavit explaining therein that under what circumstances, he passed the order dated 11.03.2025, when direction was issued by the writ Court for the State Government to decide the representation of the applicant.

¶26

Let two copies of this contempt application be provided to Sri Ram Swaroop by learned counsel for the applicant, forthwith.

¶27

Order Date :- 17.4.2025 Arpan

¶28

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

Mohammed Mujeeb Alam Khan v. Shri Ranjan Kumar Prin. Secy. Ayush ANUBHAG-1 Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Mujeeb Alam Khan v. Shri Ranjan Kumar Prin. Secy. Ayush ANUBHAG-1 Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Hari Shyam Yadav Vs the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. through and Anr.

Chemester Food Industry Pvt. Ltd. through its Authorized Representative Vs State of U.P. through Secretary, Bal Vikas Sewa Evam Pushtahar Vibhag, Lucknow and Another

M/s Gupta Automobiles, through its partner Ram Shanker Gupta Vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited, through its General Manager (Operations), and 2 Others

Raj Bahadur Vs Sita Ram and Another

Shyam Mohan Gupta S/O G.N. Lal Gupta and Anr. Vs Ram Kumar S/O Late Prabhu and Ors.

J.P. Construction and Suppliers, through its Proprietor namely Jyoti Prakash Vs The Managing Director, Uttar Pradesh Project Corporation Ltd. and Another