Ramendra Kumar Baghel vs Akhilesh Pratap Singh Distt. Basic Edu. Officer — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Ramendra Kumar Baghel vs Akhilesh Pratap Singh Distt. Basic Edu. Officer — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Four weeks' time granted to learned counsel for the applicant for filing a rejoinder affidavit; matter to be listed thereafter (contempt application pending, not finally disposed).

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent's decision dated 04.02.2025 on the applicant's representation amounts to compliance with the judgment and order dated 19.03.2024 passed in Writ A No. 2175 of 2024, given the applicant's contention that the decision was not taken in the light of the Janki Devi judgment. +1 more

Court's answer

At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant was granted four weeks' time for filing a rejoinder affidavit and the matter was ordered to be listed thereafter; the Court pronounced no final verdict on whether the respondent's decision dated 04.02.2025 constitutes compliance.

Key takeaways

The copy of the respondent's compliance decision dated 04.02.2025, produced during the course of argument, was taken on record (procedural act; no legal proposition enunciated).obiter¶9

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Court No. 17 — CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. 4392 of 2024 (Applicant: Ramendra Kumar Baghel; Opposite Party: Akhilesh Pratap Singh, District Basic Education Officer) — Order Date 6.2.2025 (Hon'ble Manish Kumar, J.). Applicant alleges non-compliance of the judgment and order dated 19.03.2024 passed in Writ A No. 2175 of 2024, which had granted the petitioner liberty to file a fresh representation before opposite party no. 3 (District Basic Education Officer, District Sitapur), to be considered and decided within six weeks in the light of the Janki Devi (Writ-A No. 7932 of 2023) directions, with payment within six weeks thereafter if found entitled. Respondent submits compliance was effected through its decision dated 04.02.2025, the copy whereof produced during argument was taken on record; applicant contends the decision was not taken in the light of the Janki Devi judgment of a coordinate Bench and therefore is not compliance. Respondent draws attention to Annexure CA-2 of his short counter affidavit filed on 30.01.2025, quoting the Division Bench judgment dated 11.11.2024 passed in Special Appeal Defective No. 585 of 2024 (filed against the identical judgment and order dated 31.01.2024 passed in Writ A No. 9872 of 2024), whereby the benefit of the Janki Devi writ court judgment having ceased to be available, the direction was modified to the extent that the representation, if any, would be considered in the light of the Division Bench judgment rendered on 12.08.2024 in Special Appeal Defective No. 307 of 2024 and other connected matters instead of the writ court judgment in Janki Devi. This Court formed no final conclusion on the compliance dispute: applicant's counsel prayed for and was granted four weeks' time for filing a rejoinder affidavit and the matter was ordered to be listed thereafter.

Court No. - 17

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 4392 of 2024

Applicant :- Ramendra Kumar Baghel Opposite Party :- Akhilesh Pratap Singh Distt. Basic Edu. Officer Counsel for Applicant :- Ramesh Chandra Counsel for Opposite Party :- Rishabh Tripathi

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

The present contempt application has been preferred for alleged non compliance of the judgment and order dated 19.03.2024 passed in Writ A No. 2175 of 2024. The relevant extract of the same is quoted hereinbelow:-

"4. He has also placed reliance on judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Janki Devi versus State of U.P. and others, Writ-A No. 7932 of 2023.

5. Since consideration of petitioner's grievance would entail factual aspects, liberty is granted to petitioner to file a fresh representation before opposite party no. 3 i.e. District Basic Education Officer District Sitapur, who shall consider and decide the same within a period of six weeks' from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the said authority in the light of directions issued by this Court in the case of Janki Devi (supra) in case the same is applicable upon petitioner. In case petitioner is found entitled for the said benefits, payment thereof shall be ensured within a period of six weeks thereafter.

6. With aforesaid observations and directions, the petition is finally disposed of."

Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that in compliance of the judgment and order dated 19.03.2024, the representation of the applicant has been decided by order dated 04.02.2025, copy of which has been produced during course of the argument (which is taken on record).

On the other hand, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that though the decision has been taken, but it has not been taken in the light of the judgment in the case of Janki Devi vs. State of U.P. and Ors. passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ A No. 7932 of 2023, hence it is not a compliance of the judgment and order passed by the writ Court.

In reply, learned counsel for the respondent has drawn the attention of this Court to Annexure CA-2 of short counter affidavit filed by the respondent on 30.01.2025 wherein the Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal Defective No. 585 of 2024 filed against the identical judgment and order dated 31.01.2024 passed in Writ A No. 9872 of 2024, as it has been passed in the case of the present applicant and the Division Bench of this Court has modified the order that the representation directed to be decided, if any, may be

considered in the light of the Division Bench judgment rendered on 12.08.2024 in the Special Appeal Defective No. 307 of 2024 and the other connected matters instead of the judgement rendered by the Writ Court in Janki Devi (supra). The relevant extract of the judgment dated 11.11.2024 passed in the said Special Appeal is quoted hereinbelow:-

"6. Learned counsel for the appellants has brought to our notice a judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in a bunch of Special Appeals inclusive of the judgment referred to by the Writ Court whereby the intra court appeal arising out of the judgment and order passed in Janki Devi (supra) has been allowed. Thus, the benefit of the judgment rendered by the Writ Court in the case of Janki Devi (supra) is no more available to the opposite party nos. 1 to 5. That being the position, the direction so issued deserves to be modified to the extent that the representation directed to be decided, if any, may be considered in the light of the Division Bench judgment rendered on 12.8.2024 in the Special Appeal Defective No. 307 of 2024 and the other connected matters instead of the judgment rendered by the Writ Court in Janki Devi (supra)."

At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted four weeks' time for filing rejoinder affidavit.

List thereafter.

Order Date :- 6.2.2025 Nitesh

Digitally signed by :- NITESH KUMAR TEWARY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench