Dismissed

Shailendra Kumar Shukla v. Shri M. Devraj, Prin. Secy. Technical Education, Technical Education Directorate, Kanpur

Allahabad HC27 Feb 2025CAPL/991/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Guest Lecturer filed a contempt petition alleging the writ court's order directing a decision on his representation for minimum pay scale and regularization had not been complied with. After the authority passed a reasoned order, the court found no wilful disobedience and dismissed the contempt petition, leaving challenge open.

What the court decided

AI extract

Shailendra Kumar Shukla vs Shri M. Devraj, Prin. Secy… — Contempt of Court | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:45864

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 991 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Shailendra Kumar Shukla Opposite Party :- Shri M. Devraj, Prin. Secy. Technical Education, Technical Education Directorate, Kanpur Counsel for Applicant :- Ramesh Kumar Srivastava

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Ramesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State respondent.

¶7

The instant petition for contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging violation of the order passed by the writ court dated 23.02.2023 passed in Writ-A No.7206 of 2022. The grievance of the petitioner is that they are working as Guest Lecturer in the Govt. Polytechnic. However, they are not being paid the minimum of pay scale nor they were being considered for regularization.

¶8

It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the writ petitioners had filed Writ-A No.7206 of 2022. The writ court by means of order dated 23.02.2023 had passed the following order which reads as under:-

¶9

"In view thereof, petitioners are permitted to make a fresh detailed representation to respondent no.1-Principal Secretary, Technical Education, Civil Secretariat, Lucknow, raising all their grievance, annexing therewith a copy of this writ petition along with annexures and all the documents in support of their claim within a period of three weeks from today along with a certified copy of this order.

¶10

In case such a representation is moved by petitioners, respondent no.1 shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law by a reasoned and speaking order within a period of three months from the date, a certified copy of this order along with representation is placed before him.

¶11

It is made clear that this court has not applied itself on the merits of the case and all questions are left open to be considered and decided by the competent authority in accordance with law.

¶12

With the aforesaid directions, present writ petition is disposed of. "

¶13

It is in furtherance thereof that the instant contempt petition came to be filed stating that the representation filed by the petitioner in compliance of the order passed by the writ court has not been considered. Thereafter the record indicates that an affidavit of compliance was filed by the respondent dated 10.09.2024 and alongwith the said affidavit the order dated 2nd of September, 2024 was brought on record. It is the case of the respondent that the Court had clearly directed the respondents to take a decision which has been done after taking note of the relevant government orders and since the writ court itself had not entered into the merits and it was the respondent who may require to decide the controversy, hence the same has been decided by a reasoned and speaking order. It is urged that the order passed by the writ court stands complied with.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of the Court to the earlier orders dated 22.08.2024 and 11.07.2025 indicating that earlier affidavit of compliance were rejected on 06.08.2024 and 22.08.2024 and in such circumstances once a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had formed its opinion that the affidavit of compliance filed earlier did not meet the requirement as set up by the writ court, hence it cannot be said that the order passed by the writ court stands complied with.

¶15

Having considered the aforesaid submissions and also perused the material on record including the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 11.07.2025 and 22.08.2024, apparently this Court finds that the direction of the writ court was only to decide the controversy within a period of three months. In the order itself it had clearly been mentioned that the Court had not applied its mind on the merits of the case and all questions were left open to be considered and decided by the competent authority in accordance with law. It is this direction which is to be considered and once the authority has taken a decision even though the decision may be against

¶16

the petitioner but nevertheless it cannot be said that the order passed by the writ court has not been complied with.

¶17

It is also to be noticed that there was no direction of the writ court to indicate that the order have to be passed in one particular manner. That being so, once liberty was granted to the competent authority to decide the matter on merits, it cannot be said that upon decision certain aspects have not been considered, hence the authority may be hauled for contempt. In case if the petitioner has any grievance to the order, it is always open for him to challenge the same in appropriate proceedings but it cannot be said that there is willful and deliberate disobedience of the order passed by the writ court.

¶18

For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is not convinced that the order dated 23.02.2023 has been deliberately and willfully violated.

¶19

In view of the above, the contempt petition is dismissed leaving it open for the petitioner to assail the order impugned if aggrieved before the appropriate forum.

¶20

Order Date :- 6.8.2025 ank

¶21

Digitally signed by :- ALI NEWAZ KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shailendra Kumar Shukla v. Shri M. Devraj, Prin. Secy. Technical Education, Technical Education Directorate, Kanpur

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Shailendra Kumar Shukla v. Shri M. Devraj, Prin. Secy. Technical Education, Technical Education Directorate, Kanpur

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sursati Vs Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Lalganj, Pratapgarh and Others

Zahira Bano @ Zahida Khatoon Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lko. and Others

Santosh Pal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lko. and Others

Susheela and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Revenue and 2 Others

Pramila vs Addl. Commissioner (Judicial), Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya and 6 Others

Farhat Ali Siddiqui vs Cooperative Tribunal U.P. India Bhawan Thru. Its Chairman Lko and 4 Others