Rajendra Prasad Vs Sri Amit Singh, P.S.F., Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry, Forest Range, Sultanpur

¶1

Court No. - 17

¶2

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 329 of 2025

¶3

Applicant :- Rajendra Prasad

¶4

Opposite Party :- Sri Amit Singh, P.S.F., Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry, Forest Range, Sultanpur

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Hanumant Lal Yadav,Shailendra Singh Chauhan

¶6

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Standing Counsel.

¶8

This application under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act has been filed alleging wilful disobedience of the judgment and order dated 04.10.2024 passed on Writ-A No. 8941 of 2024.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was working as a daily wager under the control of Divisional Forest Officer, Sultanpur since 2001, however, since he was not being paid the regular pay scale, though the same was being paid to the similarly situated persons, the applicant preferred Writ-A No. 8941 of 2024. The said petition was allowed vide order dated 04.10.2024 by setting aside the order dated 04.05.2023, by which, the claim of the applicant was rejected. The writ Court also directed the authorities to pay the minimum pay scale to the applicant, as applicable to the regular employees working as similarly placed.

¶10

Order dated 04.10.2024 reads as under.

¶11

"1. Heard Sri Shailendra Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Parul Bajpai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

¶12

Sri Chauhan has filed supplementary affidavit, today in the Court, the same is taken on record. 3. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

¶13

"(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the impugned order dated 04.05.2023 passed by opposite party No.5 as contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ petition.

¶14

(ii) to issue a writ,order or direction in the nature of mandamus

¶15

commanding/ directing the opposite party No.5 to forthwith grant the minimum pay-scale of Rs.18,000/- as per the 7th Pay Commission along with arrears since March, 2018 to the petitioner on Class-IV post, in terms of the judgment and order dated 17.11.2018 rendered by this Hon'ble High Court at Allahabad in Writ-A No.11964 of 2018 (Mohan Swaroop and another vs. State of U.P. & others)."

¶16

Attention has been drawn towards Annexure No.SA-1 of the supplementary affidavit, which is the judgment and order dated 09.05.2024 passed by this Court in Writ-A No.3079 of 2024; Bhagwan Deen and others vs. State of U.P. & others, which reads as under:-

¶17

"1. Counter affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioners states that he does not intend to file reply to the same and prays that the matter may be heard and decided finally.

¶19

With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties, the writ petition is finally being decided.

¶20

Under challenge is the order dated 04.05.2023, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the petition, whereby the claim of the petitioners for grant of the minimum pay scale as per 7th pay commission along with arrears since March, 2018, has been rejected.

¶21

The ground of rejection is that in terms of the Regularization Rules namely U.P. Regularization of Daily Wages Appointments on Group 'D' Posts Rules, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 2001"), the petitioners are not in continuous service since prior to 29.06.1991 till the date of promulgation of Rules, 2001 i.e. 21.12.2001, consequently, they are not entitled for being granted the minimum pay scale.

¶22

The aforesaid ground taken by the respondents while rejecting the claim of the petitioners for grant of minimum pay scale is patently misconceived inasmuch as, the aforesaid ground could be a ground for non consideration of the claim of the petitioners for regularization but once the petitioners were working as daily wager, consequently, there cannot be any occasion for the respondents to have invoked the ground, which may be permissible for regularization, for denying the benefits to the petitioner of the minimum pay scale.

¶23

In this regard, it would be apt to indicate that the Apex Court in the case of Sabha Shankar Dube Vs. Divisional Forest Officer 2019 (12) SCC 297 has held that till such time the temporary employee continues to work, he would be entitled for the minimum pay scale.

¶24

Accordingly, considering the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sabha Shankar Dube (supra) as well as the fact that the respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioner for grant of minimum pay scale solely on the ground that that they have not worked continuously since prior to 29.06.1991 till the date of promulgation of Rules, 2001 i.e. 21.12.2001 as such, they are not entitled for grant of minimum pay scale, is patently misconceived and consequently, the order impugned dated 04.05.2023, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the petition, is quashed. The respondents are directed to ensure the payment of minimum pay scale to the petitioner as applicable to regular employees working on the similar posts.

¶25

Let the compliance of this order be made within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order."

¶26

Sri Chauhan has stated that by means of the judgment and order dated 09.05.2024, the impugned order dated 04.05.2023 has been quashed. He has further submitted that the petitioner is also aggrieved from the same order i.e. order dated 04.05.2023. Therefore, the benefit of the judgment and order dated 09.05.2024 may be extended to the present petitioner. He has also stated that some identical petition bearing Writ-A No.2773 of 2024; Brijendra and others vs. State of U.P. & others has been decided vide judgment and order dated 23.04.2024. The Annexure No.SA-2 of the supplementary affidavit is an order being passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal Defective No.483 of 2024; State of U.P. & others vs. Bhagwan Deen and others, dismissing the special appeal of the State Government in an identical matter. After dismissal of the special appeal the authorizes have passed the compliance order in favour of the petitioners of that writ petition.

¶27

Ms. Parul Bajpai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has submitted that when this Court has quashed the order dated 04.05.2023 in respect of some petitioners and the present petitioner is also aggrieved from that order, then he should have not filed this writ petition for the same prayer and if the order dated 09.05.2024 is not being complied with the petitioners may take appropriate legal recourse.

¶28

Be that as it may, since the petitioners are not the party in the writ petition in re: Bhagwan Deen (supra) and Brijendra (supra) and the benefit of orders being passed by this Court has been given to the petitioners of those writ petitions, then this writ petition is also allowed in terms of the judgment and order dated 09.05.2024 passed in re: Bhagwan Deen (supra).

¶29

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 04.05.2023, passed by the opposite party No.5, contained as Annexure No.1, is hereby set aside/ quashed. The respondents are directed to ensure the payment of minimum pay-scale to the petitioner as applicable to the regular employees working as similarly placed, if he is still working on that post.

¶30

The writ petition is, therefore, allowed.

¶31

No order as to cost."

¶32

It is submitted that the aforesaid order was communicated to the respondent, but since the same was not being complied with, the present contempt application has been filed and vide order dated 05.02.2025, notices were issued. Thereafter, affidavit of compliance was filed by the respondent after rejecting the claim of the applicant on 24.05.2025, which was annexed with the application for discharge of contempt notice dated 28.05.2025.

¶33

Objection to the said affidavit of compliance was filed by the applicant stating therein that the applicant was

¶34

continuously working on the post of Gardener under Mr. Deepak Kumar, In-charge of the Nursery, Rohini. Learned counsel for the applicant vehemently submits that the bills were being paid in the name of other person and the applicant was being paid the amount in cash, however, as per the order of writ Court, the payment was to be paid in the account of the applicant. Photographs showing that the applicant is working on the place of posting, are also annexed with the affidavit filed along with the objection.

¶35

Thereafter, vide order dated 15.07.2025, the respondent was directed to file reply to the objection of the applicant, failing which, he was directed to appear before this Court. However, in place of filing reply to the objection of the applicant, affidavit of compliance has been filed by Shri Sunil Bajpai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel duly sworn by the respondent-Mr. Amit Singh, Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry, Forest Range, Sultanpur, which is taken on record.

¶36

Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submits that the minimum pay scale has been provided to the applicant by the respondent by passing the order on 24.07.2025, which is annexed as CA 1 to the affidavit of compliance.

¶37

List this case on 15.09.2025 within top 10 cases.

¶38

Learned counsel for the applicant may file reply to the affidavit of compliance by the next date of listing.

¶39

Order Date :- 25.7.2025 VKS

¶40

Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rajendra Prasad v. Sri Amit Singh, P.S.F., Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry, Forest Range, Sultanpur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Prasad v. Sri Amit Singh, P.S.F., Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry, Forest Range, Sultanpur

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

Shachindra Kumar Shukla Vs Smt. Neena Sharma Incharge M.D.U.P.Handlooms Corp.and Anr.

Mahendra Prakash Vs Union of India Thru. General Manager Northern Railway New Delhi and 2 Others

Ashok Kumar Vs Sri Shaliendra Singh, Executive Enginer Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Sub Division- Fatehpur

Indraveer Singh vs Sri M.P. Agarwal Prin. Secy. Cooperative Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Janardan Datta Singh vs Mrs. Kritika Jyotsana Distt. Magistrate Sultanpur

Amrit Lal vs Sri Kuldeep Singh Sub Divisional Magistrate Gonda