Puran Chand Sharma vs Jitendra Kumar Tomar, Director, Agriculture U.P. Krishi Bhawan Lko. and Another

Court No. - 17

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 4305 of 2024

Applicant :- Puran Chand Sharma Opposite Party :- Jitendra Kumar Tomar, Director, Agriculture U.P. Krishi Bhawan Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Birendra Kumar Yadav,Amit Kumar,Rohit Kumar Srivastava,Subodh Kumar Dixit

¶4

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶5

Sri Jitendra Kumar Tomar i.e. respondent no.1 and Sri Rajeev Kumar, i.e. respondent no.2 are present. They have filed application for deferment of the case along with an affidavit, which is taken on record.

¶6

Learned State counsel has submitted that against the judgment and order dated 02.08.2024, Special Leave Petition has been preferred on 14.02.2025 and the diary number has been given so the contempt proceedings may be deferred till the decision in SLP.

¶7

On the other hand, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant was retired compulsorily from service vide order dated 23.07.2018 and since then he is contesting for his rights by filing claim petition before U.P. Public Service Tribunal which was allowed by judgment and order dated 17.12.2021 but arrears of salary was denied so the applicant had approached this Court by filing Writ-A No.5729 of 2024 which was allowed by the judgment and order dated 02.08.2024 wherein it has been held that the petitioner shall be entitled to arrears of salary for the period he remained out of service with all consequential benefits of revision of pay, consideration for promotion and financial upgradations if any, etc. but when the same was not paid, the contempt application has been preferred in which on 11.11.2024 an order has been passed by the Court, which is quoted hereinbelow:-

¶8

"1. A copy of this petition be furnished to Shri Sunil Bajpai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, who is directed to seek instructions in the matter and inform this Court as to whether the order of this Court dated 02.08.2024 passed in Writ A 5729 of 2024 (Puran Chandra Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and others) has been complied with or not.

¶9

2. List this case on 25.11.2024 in top ten cases."

¶10

On the next date fixed, learned State Counsel, on the basis of instructions dated 22.11.2024 received from the respondent

¶11

no.1, submitted that the review application is pending against the judgment and order dated 02.08.2024 but learned counsel for the applicant informed that the review application had already been dismissed by the judgment and order dated 27.11.2024 and notices were issued against respondent nos.1 and 2. The order dated 03.12.2024 is quoted hereinbelow:-

¶12

"1. Learned State Counsel, on the basis of instructions dated 22.11.2024, received from the respondent no. 1 i.e. Director, Agriculture, U.P Krishi Bhawan, Lucknow has submitted that a review application is pending against the judgment and order dated 02.08.2024.

¶13

2. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the review application has been dismissed by this Court by its judgment and order dated 27.11.2024 i.e. after the instructions sent by the respondent no. 1.

¶14

3. Issue notice to the respondent nos. 1 and 2 to explain as to why contempt proceedings be not initiated against them for alleged willful disobedience of the order dated 02.08.2024 passed by this Court in Writ A No. 5729 of 2024 (Puran Chand Sharma versus State of U.P and others).

¶15

4. As prayed, steps be taken within three working days.

¶16

5. List this case in the week commencing 27.01.2025, as fresh.

¶17

6. Office is directed to submit service report by the next date of listing."

¶18

When the case was next fixed, learned State Counsel had submitted that after dismissal of review, the case of the applicant is under active consideration for compliance and prays for three weeks' time for filing compliance affidavit and accordingly the said time was granted. The order dated 28.01.2025 is quoted hereinbelow:-

¶19

"Learned Standing Counsel has put in appearance on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2 and has submitted that after the dismissal of the review petition, the case of the applicant is under active consideration for compliance of the judgment passed by the Writ Court and prays for and is granted three weeks' time for filing compliance affidavit.

¶20

List this case in the week commencing 17.02.2025. In case, by the next date of listing, the compliance affidavit is not filed, the respondent nos. 1 and 2 shall appear before this Court in person for the purposes of framing of charges for non compliance of the judgment and order of the Writ court."

¶21

From perusal of the orders as mentioned above, it is found that the respondent no.1 had sent wrong instructions that the review was pending whereas it was dismissed as mentioned in the order dated 03.12.2024. Similarly, the submission was made on behalf of the respondents by the State counsel that after dismissal of the review application, the case of the applicant is under active consideration just to buy time and both these

¶22

orders dated 03.12.2024 and 28.01.2025 show that the respondents are not approaching this Court with clean hands rather misleading the Court just to disobey the judgment and order passed by the writ court. The application for deferment of contempt proceedings is hereby rejected.

¶23

At this stage, respondent no.1 has made a statement before this Court that in case no order is passed in SLP, which is expected to be listed within a period of ten days, then an order shall be passed for compliance of judgement and order passed by the writ court and the compliance affidavit shall be filed.

¶24

As prayed, two weeks' time is granted for filing compliance affidavit, failing which respondent nos.1 and 2 shall appear before this Cout for the purposes of framing of charges.

¶25

List in the week commencing 03rd March, 2025.

¶26

Order Date :- 18.2.2025 Renu/-

¶27

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

Puran Chand Sharma v. Jitendra Kumar Tomar, Director, Agriculture U.P. Krishi Bhawan Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Puran Chand Sharma v. Jitendra Kumar Tomar, Director, Agriculture U.P. Krishi Bhawan 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kartik Thru. His Mother Smt. Anshika Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko and 4 Others

Mohammad Faisal Wasi Alias Mohammad Faizal Wasim and Another vs Mr. Vivek Srivastava Posted as Secy. Lko. Development Authority Gomti Nagar Lko.

Neelam Kaushal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Shubham Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Vimla Devi and Ors. vs S.B.I.General Insurance Company Ltd.Throu.Manager and Ors.

Mr. Dipen Paragkumar Shah vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home and Another