Dinesh Kumar Verma Vs Sri M. Dev Raj, Prin. Secy. State Tax Deptt. Lko. and Another

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 982 of 2025

Dinesh Kumar Verma

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

Sri M. Dev Raj, Prin. Secy. State Tax Deptt. Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ajey Shanker Tewari, Ishaan Tewari Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :

¶7

Court No. - 8

¶8

HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J.

¶9

The present contempt application has been preferred for alleged non compliance of the judgment and order dated 25.04.2024 passed in Writ A No. 2838 of 2024. The relevant extracts of the same are quoted hereinbelow:-

¶10

"13. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is partly allowed. The impugned order of punishment dated 14.03.2024, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the petition, is quashed. The competent authority is required to consider the reply of the petitioner dated 16.12.2022, a copy of which is annexure 26 to the writ petition, and pass a final order upon the same in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶11

14. So far as the prayer of the petitioner with regard to opening of sealed cover containing the result of departmental promotion committee for grant of promotion to the petitioner to the next higher post of Additional Commissioner Grade II, which has been kept in sealed cover for more than a year is concerned, the respondents are required to consider the claim of the petitioner for grant of ad-hoc promotion in terms of clause 10 of the government order dated 28.05.1997, a copy of which is annexure 38 to the petition.

¶12

15. The aforesaid consideration shall also be done within the aforesaid period of time. "

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that firstly, the respondents have committed contempt of this Court by concluding the enquiry and passing the punishment order beyond the time provided by the writ Court and secondly, they have not given the ad-hoc promotion to the applicant as per terms of Clause 10 of the G.O. dated 28.05.1997 as directed in the judgment and order passed in the writ petition so, the non compliance is intentional and wilful and the respondents are liable to be punished.

¶14

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the enquiry was concluded, the punishment order was passed which has already been challenged by the applicant and secondly before any decision could be taken for ad-hoc promotion, the enquiry was concluded and the punishment order was passed and there is no direction to grant ad-hoc promotion only the direction was for consideration.

¶15

CAPL No. 982 of 2025

¶16

2

¶17

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, it is found that the enquiry was concluded, the punishment order was passed thereafter and the punishment order has already been challenged by the applicant by filing the claim petition before U.P. Public Service Tribunal taking all the pleas which is pending and as far as not granting ad-hoc promotion as directed by the High Court as submitted by learned counsel for the applicant is not having any force for the reason that the direction was for considering the claim and there was no positive direction to grant ad-hoc promotion to the applicant.

¶18

In view of the facts, circumstances and discussion made hereinabove, the judgment and order has been complied with and the present contempt application is hereby dismissed.

¶19

November 6, 2025

¶20

Nitesh

¶21

(Manish Kumar,J.)

¶22

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

Dinesh Kumar Verma v. Sri M. Dev Raj, Prin. Secy. State Tax Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Kumar Verma v. Sri M. Dev Raj, Prin. Secy. State Tax Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Gaffar Khan Vs Ashish Singh, S.D.M., Amethi and Another

Mrs. Shashi Singh and Another Vs Shri Gaurav Kumar, Municipal Commissioner, Corporation, Lko.

Rakesh Srivastava Vs Shri Vishak G, Distt. Magistrate Lko. D.M. Office Qaisar Bagh Lko.

Ram Chandra Maurya vs Santosh Kumar Sinha, Addl. General Manager / Unit Head, Iti Ltd., Gonda

Prabhakar Singh vs Santosh Kumar Sinha, Addl. General Manager/Unit Head Iti Ltd. Gonda

Sageer Ahmad vs Santosh Kumar Sinha, Addl. General Manager / Unit Head, Iti Ltd, Gonda