Hawaldar Singh vs Shri Amrit Abhijat, Prin.Secy.Nagar Vikas Vibhag, Nagar Vikas ANUBHAG-4, U.P.Govt.Civil Secrtt.Lko.

Court No. - 17

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 939 of 2024

Applicant :- Hawaldar Singh Opposite Party :- Shri Amrit Abhijat, Prin.Secy.Nagar Vikas Vibhag, Nagar Vikas Anubhag-4, U.P.Govt.Civil Secrtt.Lko.

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Ashwani Kumar

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶6

The present contempt application has been preferred for alleged non compliance of the judgment and order dated 25.07.2023 passed in Writ A No. 1452 of 2020. The relevant extract of the said judgment and order is quoted hereinbelow:-

¶7

"16. Perusal of the order impugned would indicate that two reasons have prevailed on the respondents while rejecting the claim of the petitioner namely (a) that as the petitioner has retired from service on 31.07.2013 consequently, there cannot be any regularization of retired person and (b) that as the medical cadre had been declared as a dead cadre and alleged persons similarly circumstanced were working as revenue officers as such, the petitioner cannot be regularized.

¶8

17. So far as the first ground is concerned i.e as the petitioner having retired from service on 31.07.2013 and as such he cannot be regularized, the said ground is patently misconceived inasmuch as the writ Court vide order dated 30.07.2013, after considering that the petitioner was going to retire on the very next date, required the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner sympathetically. The order for regularization was passed a day prior to the retirement of the petitioner i.e on 30.07.2013. At the time of passing of the order, the petitioner was well in service and as such, the respondents should have considered this aspect of the matter while considering the claim of the petitioner sympathetically. However, by the time the consideration of the claim of regularization of the petitioner took place, which was beyond the period of two months specified by the writ Court the order having been passed on 26.09.2014 i.e after a period of one year from the date of the order of the writ Court, the petitioner obviously stood retired. Obviously, no premium can be put on the inaction and lackadaisical attitude on the part of the respondents in not adhering to the time frame that had been fixed by the writ Court vide judgment and order dated 30.07.2013 inasmuch as it cannot be a case that on the one hand the respondents failed to comply with the order of the writ Court within the time specified and on the other hand take a plea that by the time the claim for regularization of the petitioner was considered, the petitioner stood retired. Even otherwise, the order of the writ Court was never challenged and as such, the respondents were duty bound to comply with the judgment and order dated 30.07.2013 which required them to consider the case of the petitioner sympathetically.

¶9

18. Thus, the said ground being misconceived is rejected.

¶10

19. So far as the other ground as taken by the respondents while rejecting the claim of the petitioner is concerned i.e the medical cadre having been declared as a dead cadre in the year 1995, suffice it to say that the respondents themselves through the orders passed by them dated 16.07.2006, 19.05.2008 & 03.06.2011 which have cumulatively been filed as annexure 16 to the writ petition continued to utilize the services of the petitioner initially as Medical Officer and

¶11

thereafter as a Health Officer and Zonal Health Officer meaning thereby that they benefited from the services of the petitioner. Even other wise, the petitioner has rendered twenty two years of uninterrupted services under the respondents and thus it was in the fitness of things that the respondents should have also considered this aspect of the matter while considering the claim of the petitioner for regularization.

¶12

20. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and is allowed. A writ of certiorari is issued quashing the order dated 02.12.2019, a copy of which is annexure 1 t the writ petition. A writ of mandamus issued to the respondent no. 1 i.e Principal Secretary,/Secretary, Nagar Vikas Vibhag Anubhag-4, Civil Secretariat, Lucknow to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization in accordance with the rules with effect from the date and the persons similarly circumstanced were regularized keeping in view the discussion made above. It is made clear that the case of the petitioner for regularization would not be rejected on the ground that he stands retired on the date of consideration for regularization. "

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the ground on which the claim of the applicant for regularization was rejected earlier were that he had already retired and the cadre in which he was working has already been declared dead. That Order was challenged by filing Writ A No. 1452 of 2020. The said writ petition was allowed by judgment and order dated 25.07.2023. Despite the order/judgment of the writ court, the claim of the applicant has again been rejected by taking the same grounds by order dated 18.12.2023. and the same is nothing but a wilful and intentional disobedience of the judgment and order passed by the writ court.

¶14

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the compliance affidavit has been filed on 26.04.2024 enclosing therein the order dated 18.12.2023 which has already been enclosed as Annexure no. 5 to the present contempt application and unable to dispute that the decision has been taken and the claim of the applicant has been rejected by order dated 18.12.2023 on the same grounds which were taken earlier while considering the candidature of the applicant for regularization and those grounds have already been found to be mis-conceived by the writ court.

¶15

After arguing at some length, learned Standing Counsel prays for and is granted three weeks' time to re-visit the matter and file a further affidavit of compliance of judgment and order dated 25.07.2023, failing which the respondent i.e. Shri Amrit Abhijat, Principal Secretary, Nagar Vikas Vibhag, U.P., Lucknow shall appear for the purposes of framing of charges.

¶16

List this case in the week commencing 24.02.2025.

¶17

Order Date :- 29.1.2025 Nitesh

¶18

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

Hawaldar Singh v. Shri Amrit Abhijat, Prin.Secy.Nagar Vikas Vibhag, Nagar Vikas ANUBHAG-4, U.P.Govt.Civil Secrtt.Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hawaldar Singh v. Shri Amrit Abhijat, Prin.Secy.Nagar Vikas Vibhag, Nagar Vikas ANUBHAG-4, U.P.Govt.Civil Secrtt.Lko.

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

Smt. Kalawati Vs Dr. Shashi Shekhar, Up Ziladhikari, Tahsil Tanda, Distt. Ambedkar Nagar

C/M, Kamta Singh Junior Balika Vidyalya Thru. Its Manager Vs Sri Santosh Kumar Rai, Basic Education Officer, Distt. Ayodhya / Faizabad

Rashmi Srivastava Vs Shri Abhishek Anand, Distt. Magistrate, Sitapur

Durga Prasad Yadav and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Shailendra Shukla and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Suresh Chandra vs Sri Chandra Vijay Singh, District Magistrate Ayodhya