Suresh Chaudhary vs Vikshak G, District Magistrate… — Contempt of Court | Allahabad HC (2025)

Suresh Chaudhary vs Vikshak G, District Magistrate… — Contempt of Court | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Contempt proceedings continued rather than finally decided: the Court recorded that the applicant's case had not been considered pursuant to the writ Court's order under the Regularization Rules for Ad-hoc employees, directed the respondent to file an affidavit of compliance with a fresh decision, failing which he must appear for framing of charges; the case was listed again on 22.07.2025.

Issue for consideration

Whether the opposite party has wilfully disobeyed the writ Court's judgment/orders dated 06.12.2024 and 19.12.2024 passed in Writ-A No. 11677 of 2024 (failure to consider the applicant's regularization under the Regularization Rules for Ad-hoc employees), so as to attract punishment under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act.

Court's answer

The Court held that the applicant's case has not been considered in pursuance of the order of the writ Court under the provisions of the Regularization Rules for Ad-hoc employees; compliance with the writ Court's order remains outstanding.

Ratio / Principle

The respondent is directed to file an affidavit of compliance along with a fresh decision in the case of the applicant.

Key takeaways

If the respondent fails to comply with the direction, he shall appear before the Court for the purpose of framing of charges.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt Application (Civil) No. 722 of 2025 (Lucknow Bench, decided 07.07.2025, Rajeev Singh, J.) — Suresh Chaudhary, ad-hoc Collection peon appointed 10.06.1997 and orally ousted on 02.05.1998, whose continuation was secured by an interim order in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 4234 of 1999, alleged wilful disobedience by the District Magistrate, Lucknow of the writ Court's judgment/orders dated 06.12.2024 and 19.12.2024 in Writ-A No. 11677 of 2024, which had set aside the refusal dated 22.10.2024 and directed consideration of his regularization under the Regularization Rules for Ad-hoc employees alongside similarly situated Ram Naresh, Vinod Kumar Singh and Mohd. Yakub. The respondent relied on the U.P. Collection Peon Service Rules, 2004 (four fasli years' satisfactory service, age 45) to reject the claim on over-age grounds. Holding the case 'has not been considered in pursuance of the order of writ court', the Court directed an affidavit of compliance with a fresh decision by 22.07.2025, failing which the respondent must appear for framing of charges.

Court No. - 17

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 722 of 2025

Applicant :- Suresh Chaudhary Opposite Party :- Vikshak G, District Magistrate District Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Kumar Singh

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Amrendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel.

This application under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act has been filed alleging wilful disobedience of the judgment and orders dated 06.12.2024 and 19.12.2024 passed on Writ-A No. 11677 of 2024.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant, who was appointed as ad-hoc Collection peon on 10.06.1997, was ousted from service by oral order dated 02.05.1998. Against the said oral order, the applicant preferred Writ Petition (S/S) No. 4234 of 1999, in which, interim order was passed, on the basis of which, the applicant/petitioner was allowed to work on Collection peon since 23.08.1999. It is submitted that the applicant was being paid regular pay scale, but since his case for regularization was denied, he filed Writ-A No. 11677 of 2024, which was allowed by the writ Court vide order dated 06.12.2024 and set aside the order dated 22.10.2024, whereby the claim of the applicant for regularization was refused. The writ Court also directed the respondent no. 2 to pass appropriate order for regularization of the services of the petitioner/applicant in accordance with law while taking into consideration the case of similarly situated persons, namely, Ram Naresh, Vinod Kumar Singh and Mohd. Yakub.

Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that till date, the order of writ Court has not been complied with under the Regularization Rules for Ad-hoc employees and, therefore, the respondent may be summoned and punished

accordingly.

Shri Amrendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel, while placing written instructions duly signed by the respondentMr. Vikshak G., District Magistrate, Lucknow, submits that in the case of the applicant, the decision has already been taken by the respondent by rejecting his claim on the ground that applicant is over age and as per the provisions of U.P. Collection Peon Service Rules, 2004, only such Collection peons, who have completed satisfactory services for four fasli years and having age of 45 years, are eligible for regularization. It is, thus, submitted that no contempt is made out.

The aforesaid written instructions are taken on record.

Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned Standing Counsel and going through the order of writ Court as well as contents of the written instructions, it is evident that the applicant was appointed as ad-hoc Collection peon, however, his claim has been rejected by the respondent mentioning the provisions of Rules relating to seasonal collection peons.

In view of above, this Court is of the view that the case of the applicant has not been considered in pursuance of the order of writ court under the provisions of Regularization Rules for Ad-hoc employees.

List this case again on 22.07.2025.

The respondent is directed to file affidavit of compliance along with fresh decision in the case of the applicant, failing which, he shall appear before this Court for the purposes of framing of charges.

Order Date :- 7.7.2025 VKS

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