Mohammad Taiyyab vs Shri Alok Kumar, I.a.S., Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies Deptt. Govt. of U.P., Lko. and Another

Court No. - 17

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 4167 of 2024 Applicant :- Mohammad Taiyyab Opposite Party :- Shri Alok Kumar, I.A.S., Prin. Secy. Food And Civil Supplies Deptt. Govt. Of U.P., Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shamshad Ahmad Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- Kaushlendra Tewari

¶3

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Asit Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Kaushlendra Tewari, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶5

On 8.7.2025, following order was passed :-

¶6

1. Heard.

¶7

2. The instant contempt application has been filed by the applicant alleging disobedience of the order dated 31.07.2024 passed by this Court in Writ-A No. 1813 of 2022.

¶8

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that a claim petition was filed by the applicant before U.P. State Public Service Tribunal, which was registered as Claim Petition No. 741 of 2018 and after exchange of the pleading, aforesaid claim petition was allowed by State Public Service Tribunal vide order dated 10.12.2021 by setting aside the order dated 17.03.2018 directing the authorities to reconsider the case of the applicant for regularization in accordance with U.P. Regularization of Daily Wages Appointment on Group 'D' Posts Rules, 2001. The aforesaid judgement of the Tribunal was challenged before this Court by the officials of the Corporation by filing Writ-A No. 1813 of 2022, which was dismissed on 31.07.2024 with direction that the judgement of the Tribunal shall be complied with within one month, but the case of the applicant has not been considered till today.

¶9

It is further submitted that the affidavit of compliance has been filed by respondent no.2 rejecting the claim of the applicant with the observation that Regularization Rules, 2001 are not applicable in the case of the applicant. It is undisputed fact that the applicant was working since 26.06.1991 and the cut off date for regularization was 29.06.1991 and as the case of the applicant was ignored by the authorities, respondent no.2 may be summoned and punished accordingly.

¶10

4. Sri Kaushlendra Tewari, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the prayer of the applicant and submits that the case of the applicant has already been considered and final order has been passed, hence, no contempt is made out.

¶11

5. Considering the contents of the application as well as other relevant material, it is evident from the order passed by the Tribunal as well as the writ Court that a direction was issued to the authorities for considering regularization of the applicant in accordance with U.P. Regularization of Daily Wages Appointment on Group 'D' Posts Rules, 2001. At this stage, proper opportunity was available to the authorities, but there was no objection. Therefore, the affidavit of compliance filed by respondent no.2 is hereby rejected.

¶12

6. List this case on 28.07.2025.

¶13

7. By the next date, respondent no.2 shall file fresh affidavit of compliance by reconsidering his earlier decision, failing which, he shall appear in person before this Court for the purposes of framing of charge.

¶14

Sri Asit Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent filed application for deferment of contempt proceedings, same is taken

¶15

on record.

¶16

Learned counsel for the respondent informs that judgment and order dated 10.12.2021 passed by the U.P. State Public Service Tribunal in Claim Petition No.741 of 2018 was challenged before the writ court and the said petition was dismissed by holding the judgment of the learned tribunal. He also submits that contempt application was filed by the applicant before the learned tribunal and at the same time, he also preferred contempt application before this Court for violation of the observations made by the writ court. Learned counsel for the respondent also relies on the decision of the co-ordinate bench in the Contempt Application No.1417 of 2017 & judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'Dineshan K.K. Vs. R.K. Singh and Ors.' reported in (2014) 16 SCC 88 and submits that once contempt application is already filed before the tribunal under Section 5A for violation of the judgment passed by the U.P. State Public Service Tribunal, therefore, present contempt application is not maintainable.

¶17

Learned counsel for the respondent also informs that order passed by this Court has already been challenged in the Special Appeal No.235 of 2025, which is listed tomorrow, therefore, contempt proceeding may be deferred.

¶18

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the respondent and going through the contents of the deferment application and judgment relied on by learned counsel for the respondent, as it is well settled that once the execution proceeding is initiated and issue has been decided by the writ court, then contempt application is maintainable, therefore, submissions of learned counsel for the respondent has no force and the application for deferment of contempt proceeding filed by the learned counsel for the respondent is hereby rejected.

¶19

List this case on 4.8.2025 in terms of earlier order dated 8.7.2025.

¶20

Order Date :- 28.7.2025/GauraV/-

¶21

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

Mohammad Taiyyab v. Shri Alok Kumar, I.a.S., Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies Deptt. Govt. of U.P., Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Taiyyab v. Shri Alok Kumar, I.a.S., Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies Deptt. Govt. of U.P., 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

Vinay Prakash Shukla Vs Shri Rajendra Bahadur, Sub Divisional Magistrate Tehsil Balrampur Sadar Distt. Balrampur

Radha and Another vs Sri Anil Kumar, Addl. Chief Secy. / Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Labour, Govt. of U.P. Lko. and Another

Meera Alias Meera Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Panchayat Raj Lko. and 4 Others

Vijay Kumar @ Vijayee and 2 Others vs Smt. Narendar Kaur

Rudra Kumar vs Smt. Chitrarekha

M/S Mobcoder Technologies Pvt. Ltd. through Director Ashutosh Kumar Singh vs M/S Bhavya Creators Pvt. Ltd. through Director Girijesh Kumar