Prem Narayan Pandey vs Shri Atma Prakash Bajpayee, Addl. Director, Pension, Basti and Another

Court No. - 17

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 667 of 2024

Applicant :- Prem Narayan Pandey Opposite Party :- Shri Atma Prakash Bajpayee, Addl. Director, Pension, Basti And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Alok Kirti Mishra,Rupa Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶5

It is evident from the record that notice was issued on 16.02.2024 and as per the office report dated 20.03.2024 based on the report of Chief Judaical Magistrate, Basti dated 14.03.2024, notice was served upon respondent nos.1 and 2 through their respective offices but no reply was filed by respondent no.1. Thereafter, bailable warrant was issued against respondent no.1 vide order dated 20.03.2025.

¶6

Order dated 20.03.2025 is as under:

¶7

"On 20.02.2025 following order was passed:-

¶8

"Learned Standing Counsel on the basis of instructions received from the respondents dated 19.03.2024 has submitted that the documents were forwarded to the Assistant Director, Fisheries, Siddharth Nagar to send the proposal for payment afresh after making determination of the amount.

¶9

On the other hand, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that in compliance of the judgment and order passed by the writ Court dated 14.02.2023, the Assistant Director, Fisheries, Siddharth Nagar had forwarded the papers to the respondents on 20.05.2023 after calculating the pension/dues to be paid to the applicant. The respondent no. 1 after receiving computation from the Department had returned the papers by its letter dated 06.11.2023 by wrongly interpreting the judgment and order passed by the writ Court i.e. it has been mentioned in the letter that the High Court has only passed an order related to the recovery against the applicant and the fresh determination was made without there being any order of the High Court.

¶10

It is further submitted that the Department had again sent the letter on 29.12.2023 reiterating the earlier determination of the amount, hence there was no occasion for writing a letter again to the Assistant Director, Fisheries.

¶11

The writ Court has passed an order dated 14.02.2023. The

¶12

relevant extract of the same is quoted hereinbelow:-

¶13

"Since such recovery is not tenable in the eyes of law, therefore, if any amount is deducted, the same shall be paid to the petitioner. However, in case petitioner falls within the exception of Rafiq Masih case (supra), the respondents shall pass fresh order only after giving a notice and proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Such a notice may be given by the respondents, if so required, to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order and the entire process shall also be completed within a further period of two months from the date of issuance of notice. In case such a notice is not issued to the petitioner within six weeks, respondents shall also pay the amount already deducted from the petitioner under the impugned orders."

¶14

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, the position which emerges out in the present case is that the objection raised by the respondent no. 1 by its letter dated 06.11.2023 that the High Court has only passed an order related to the recovery and not for re-determination is totally incorrect as the High Court by its judgment and order dated 14.02.2023, as quoted above has given liberty to the authorities to pass afresh order which has been passed on 20.05.2023 and forwarded it to the respondent no. 1. The conduct of the respondent no. 1, as discussed above, is nothing but a wilful disobedience of the order passed by the writ Court.

¶15

At this stage, learned Standing Counsel prays for and is granted three weeks' time for filing compliance affidavit failing which the respondent no. 1 shall appear in person for the purposes of framing of charges.

¶16

List this case in the week commencing 17.03.2025."

¶17

Today when the matter was taken up no affidavit on behalf of opposite party no. 1 has been filed nor the opposite party no. 1 has appeared in person as well.

¶18

Issue bailable warrants against opposite party no. 1 to compel the appearance of opposite party no. 1, Sri Atma Prakash Bajpayee, Additional Director, Pension, Basti Division.

¶19

List on 16.04.2025. "

¶20

Today, respondent no.1- Shri Atma Prakash Bajpayee, Additional Director, Pension, Basti is present before this Court and he has submitted that notices were being received by ClassIII and IV officers in his office but he was not aware of the same. As the affidavit of compliance is filed but this fact has not been mentioned that he has not received any notice.

¶21

At this stage, respondent no.1 tenders an unconditional apology for making such submission. The aforesaid apology is accepted with the observation that in future, he must take care of the matters related to the notices received in his office in reference to the contempt as well as Court matters.

¶22

One week's time is granted to learned counsel for the applicant for filing reply.

¶23

List this case on 28.04.2025.

¶24

In the meantime, learned counsel for the applicant may also implead Director, Fisheries, Basti as respondent no.3 in the array of respondents in the memo of application.

¶25

Officer, present today, shall again appear in person before this Court on the next date.

¶26

Order Date :- 16.4.2025 V. Sinha

¶27

Digitally signed by :- VAISHALI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Prem Narayan Pandey v. Shri Atma Prakash Bajpayee, Addl. Director, Pension, Basti and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prem Narayan Pandey v. Shri Atma Prakash Bajpayee, Addl. Director, Pension, Basti 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sunil Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Nishant Kumar Ojha Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Mohd. Salman Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. / Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home and 3 Others

Gajendra Prasad Pandey and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Medical Health and Family Welfare Lko and 5 Others

Bharat Lal and 3 Others vs Mr. P. Guru Prasad Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Hounsing and Urban Planning and 4 Others

Dr. Ram Lakhan Singh vs Dr. Monendra Singh Chief Medical Officer Dist. Hathras and Another