Dismissed

Vinay Kumar Johari v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC10 Apr 2025WRIA/6267/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Hon'ble Single Judge dismissed an appeal against an interim order allowing liberty to challenge a fresh service department order. The judgment held that the earlier contempt application was rendered infructuous because the impugned order had been complied with, thereby precluding examination of non-compliance of the prior writ direction regarding consequential benefits.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; liberty to challenge the order dated 16.01.2021 before the appropriate forum remains untouched.

Vinay Kumar Johari Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Contempt of Court | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Court No. - 5

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6267 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Vinay Kumar Johari Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others

¶4

Counsel for Petitioner :- Akanksha Mishra,Kshitij Shailendra (Elevated) Counsel for Respondent :- Ashok Kumar Lal,C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶6

Heard Ms. Akanksha Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the Staterespondent No. 1 and Shri Ashok Kumar Lal, learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 to 4.

¶7

The petitioner was dismissed from service 24.09.2013. The petitioner assailed the order of dismissal by instituting Writ A No. 62236 of 2013 (Vinay Kumar Johari Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others). The writ petition of the petitioner was allowed by the order dated 30.05.2018 with the following directions:-

¶8

"15. In the result, this writ petition is allowed. Impugned order of punishment dated 24.9.2013 is hereby set aside. Petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits.

¶9

However, we make it clear that this judgment shall not preclude respondents from passing fresh order in accordance with law. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. "

¶10

Disciplinary action could not be taken against the petitioner on account of his retirement and lack of provisions to continue disciplinary proceedings pursuant to post retirement. The petitioner took out contempt proceedings on account of non compliance of the payment of consequential benefits as directed by this Court.

¶11

The learned Single Judge while deciding the Contempt Application (Civil) No. 6748 of 2018 (Vijay Kumar Johari Vs. Devesh Singh and 3 others) by the order dated 11.03.2022 has held "In view of the said fact, the order of Writ Court has already been complied with and the contempt application has rendered infructuous."

¶12

Admittedly liberty was granted to the petitioner in the order dated 11.03.2022 to challenge the order dated 16.01.2021 before the appropriate forum.

¶13

However, this Court cannot go into the issue of non compliance of the directions of this Court regarding payment of consequential benefits in view of the finding of the learned Single Judge rendered in contempt application.

¶14

The writ petition is dismissed.

¶15

Order Date :- 11.4.2025 Jaswant

¶16

Digitally signed by :- JASWANT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vinay Kumar Johari v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinay Kumar Johari v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aditya Alias Bhura vs State of U.P.

Mange Alias Ravindra vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Bani Singh Yaduvanshi vs Managing Director Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam and 2 Others

Akshat Gupta and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Rahul and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Ramu vs State of U.P.