Pawan Kumar and 34 Others Vs Mr. P. Guruprasad, Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue U.P. Lko. and Another

Court No. - 17

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 4834 of 2024

Applicant :- Pawan Kumar And 34 Others Opposite Party :- Mr. P. Guruprasad, Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue U.P. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Abhineet Jaiswal,Shreya Jaiswal

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶5

On 21.02.2025 and 18.03.2025, following orders were passed.

¶6

21.02.2025

¶7

"1. An application for deferment of the contempt application has been filed by respondent no. 1 (which is taken on record) stating therein that in the identical cases, Bunch of Special Appeals have been preferred which are pending, as such the present contempt application may be deferred.

¶8

Sri Kuldeep Pati Tripathi, learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that the affidavit was sworn on 10.02.2025 and on 11.02.2025, Special Appeal (D) No. 60 of 2025 has been filed which was listed along with the Bunch of Special Appeals yesterday i.e. 20.02.2025.

¶9

It is further submitted that since the Special Appeal has been filed, so the contempt proceedings may be deferred till the decision in the Special Appeal.

¶10

It is further submitted that the compliance order is to be passed with the approval of the Principal Secretary (Finance) though Sri Deepak Kumar, Additional Chief Secretary/Principal Secretary to the Department of Finance is arrayed as respondent no. 2 but the Department has wrongly been shown as Department of Revenue, so in the capacity of Principal Secretary, Finance, no notice is served upon the respondent no. 2.

¶11

On the other hand, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that due to typographical error, the Department of Revenue has been shown in front of the name of respondent no. 2 whereas it is Department of Finance and requested that he may be permitted to correct the Department as far as it is related to respondent no. 2 during course of the day.

¶12

As prayed, learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to make necessary amendment/incorporation in the array of the respondents during course of the day.

¶13

As per the Office report dated 20.02.2025, the notice upon the respondent no. 2 is unserved.

¶14

Learned Additional Advocate General has very fairly submitted that the learned counsel for the applicant may be permitted to provide the notice for respondent no. 2 to the learned Standing Counsel in place of issuing notice in the matter, treating it as service of notice upon the respondent no.

¶15

2.

¶16

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted three days' time for providing copy of the contempt application to Sri Kuldeep Pati Tripathi, learned Additional Advocate General.

¶17

Sri Tripathi has further submitted that the matter is under consideration, as such some time may be granted for filing affidavit and in the meantime it is expected that some order may also be passed in the Special Appeal which is listed tomorrow.

¶18

As prayed, three weeks' time is granted for filing affidavit failing which the respondent nos. 1 & 2 shall appear in person before this Court.

¶19

List this case in the week commencing 17.03.2025."

¶20

18.03.2025

¶21

"1. Heard.

¶22

The instant contempt application has been filed by the applicants alleging disobedience of the order dated 31.08.2024 passed by the writ Court in Writ-A No. 7183 of 2024.

¶23

It is admitted by learned counsel for the parties that the order dated 31.08.2024 passed by the writ Court was challenged before the Division Bench in a special appeal after issuance of notice in the present contempt petition on 03.01.2025.

¶24

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that a Special Appeal Defective No. 60 of 2025 was filed on 11.02.2025 after about five months delay, but the delay has not been condoned till today; the said special appeal is connected with Special Appeal No. 375 of 2022, in which, the order of the writ Court is already complied with subject to decision of the special appeal.

¶25

An application for deferment is filed today by Sri Aniruddha Singh, learned Standing Counsel duly sworn by Mr. Deepak Kumar, Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of U.P., Civil Secretariat, Lucknow.

¶26

It is submitted by Sri Aniruddha Singh that once a special appeal is pending, it is logical that the contempt proceedings may be deferred. However, he does not dispute the fact that the order in question is already challenged in the Special Appeal Defective No. 60 of 2025 after the delay of five months and in identical matter, the order of the writ Court has already been complied with despite pendency of the special appeal subject to decision of the special appeal. Therefore, the deferment application is hereby rejected.

¶27

Sri Aniruddha Singh also filed a short counter affidavit duly sworn by Mr. P. Guruprasad, Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Government of U.P., Civil Secretariat, Lucknow, which is taken on record.

¶28

Sri Aniruddha Singh also submits that the issue is pending before Finance Department for consent.

¶29

List this case on 01.04.2025 at 11:30 A.M.

¶30

On the next date, relevant record related to the issue in question be placed before this Court."

¶31

Mr. Subhash, Review Officer, Department of Revenue, Mr. Vijay Prakash Govil, Section Officer, Depart of Revenue, Lucknow and Mr. Rehan Ahmad Siddiqui, Consolidation Officer, Consolidation Directorate, U.P., Lucknow are present before this Court along with relevant record.

¶32

The aforesaid orders were communicated by the learned Standing Counsel to the respondents, in pursuance of which, written instructions dated 28.03.2025 duly signed by Mr. Pushpraj, Special Secretary, Department of Finance, Lucknow dated 28.03.2025 as well as letter dated 29.03.2025 written by Mr. Om Prakash Yadav, Joint Secretary and Mr. Vijay Prakash Govil, Section Officer, Department of Revenue are placed before this Court, which are taken on record.

¶33

It is requested that the contempt proceedings may be deferred on the ground that Special Appeal (D) Nos. 59 of 2025 and 60 of 2025 are pending before the Division Bench of this Court.

¶34

The aforesaid record reveals that vide Noting Nos. 70 to 81, request was forwarded by the Revenue Department to the Finance Department for grant of approval for payment of grade pay of Rs.2400/- from 11.01.2016, subject to decision in the pending Special Appeal.

¶35

It is informed that in identical circumstances, orders for payment of grade pay of Rs.2400/- were passed by the writ Court in different petitions, against which, Special Appeals were also preferred. However, after initiation of contempt proceedings grade pay of Rs.2400/- was paid to the applicants therein with the approval of the Finance Department, subject to decision of pending Special Appeals.

¶36

However, in the present case, ignoring the recommendation of the Revenue Department for equal treatment, Finance Department vide Noting No. 112 dated 10.03.2025 advised for moving deferment application before this Court. It is informed that earlier also, an

¶37

application for deferment was filed, which was rejected vide order dated 18.03.2025. Thereafter, again vide Noting Nos. 119 to 129, Department of Revenue recommended for grant of approval for payment of grade pay of Rs.2400/-, as in the identical circumstances, it was given to other persons, subject to decision of their pending Special Appeal. However, it is again opined by the Finance Department for moving deferment application.

¶38

Shri Aniruddh Singh, learned Standing Counsel, though submits that in the present case, Special Appeal (D) No. 60/2025 filed against the order of the writ Court dated 31.08.2024 passed in Writ-A No. 7183 of 2024 has been connected with Special Appeal (D) No. 59/2025 and both the said appeals were connected with pending Special Appeal (D) No. 375 of 2022, in which, delay has been condoned. However, it is not disputed that during the pendency of the said Special Appeal (D) No. 375 of 2022, the order of the writ Court has been complied with, subject to the decision of the said Special Appeal.

¶39

In view of above facts, it is evident that the deferment application has already been rejected vide order dated 18.03.2025. It is also evident from the record that the State Government is not doing any effective pairvi for deciding the pending Special Appeal, as admittedly, the delay has not been condoned till today.

¶40

List this case again on 21.04.2025.

¶41

By the next date of listing, either affidavit of compliance be filed by the respondent-officials or some positive order be placed before this Court passed in the aforesaid pending Special Appeals, failing which, charges shall be framed against the respondents, who shall appear before this Court on the next date.

¶42

The relevant record provided by the Officers present before this Court is returned to them.

¶43

Order Date :- 1.4.2025 VKS

¶44

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

Pawan Kumar and 34 Others v. Mr. P. Guruprasad, Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue U.P. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pawan Kumar and 34 Others v. Mr. P. Guruprasad, Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mohd. Islam Vs Kumar Vineet, M.D., U.P. Coop. Sugar Factories Federation Ltd., Lko. and Another

Raj Kumar Pandey and Another Vs Smt. Neha Sharma Ias, Collector / D.M., Gonda and 6 Others

Neeraj Kumar Vs Shri Vishal Kumar Yadav, Special Land Acquisition Officer, Raebareli

Sadhna Dubey Vs Sri Abhishek Singh-Iii, Civil Judge Junior Division Tanda / Jm Ambedkar Nagar U.P.

Dhuru Narain Shukla Vs Mr. Shashank Tripathi Distt. Magistrate Distt Barabanki and Another

Pramod Kumar Nishad Vs Sri Ghanshyam Bharti, Tehsildar, Tehsil Kadipur, Sultanpur