Riyasuddin vs Sri Jagdish R. Deputy Director, Dudhwa Tigar Reserve, Pallia Kalan Lakhimpur Kheri — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Riyasuddin vs Sri Jagdish R. Deputy Director, Dudhwa Tigar Reserve, Pallia Kalan Lakhimpur Kheri — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interim directions issued: opposite party to appear on 19.05.2026 for framing of charges; liberty to revisit the order dated 02.05.2026 in light of the cited Apex Court judgments, pass a fresh order after considering them and file an affidavit on or before the next date; officer concerned/opposite party to remain present; case listed on 19.05.2026.

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 02.05.2026 passed by the opposite party amounts to compliance, in its true spirit, with the order of the Writ Court. +1 more

Court's answer

Upon due consideration of the affidavit of compliance, the order dated 02.05.2026, the petitioner's engagement as daily wager since July 2012, and the cited Apex Court pronouncements, this Court finds that the order of the Writ Court has not been complied with in its true spirit.

Ratio / Principle

The opposite party is directed to appear before this Court on the next date fixed, i.e. 19.05.2026, for framing of charges.

Key takeaways

In the meantime it is open to the opposite party to revisit the order dated 02.05.2026 in the light of the Supreme Court judgments referred to by this Court; the fresh order shall be passed after considering them and an affidavit in this regard filed on or before the next date fixed (19.05.2026).ratio¶16
It is made clear that on the next date the officer concerned/opposite party shall remain present before this Court.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Court No. 7; Saurabh Lavania, J.; decision dated May 11, 2026. Contempt Application (Civil) No. 1614 of 2026, Riyasuddin (Applicant) v. Sri Jagdish R., Deputy Director, Dudhwa Tiger Reserve, Pallia Kalan, Lakhimpur Kheri (Opposite Party). The applicant sought enforcement of compliance with an earlier Writ Court order relating to his initial engagement as a daily wager in July 2012. The learned State Counsel (Shri Ram Swaroop) filed an affidavit of compliance, which was taken on record. Considering the affidavit, the contents of the opposite party's order dated 02.05.2026, and Supreme Court pronouncements including Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Jaggu ((2019) 7 SCC 658), Sabha Shanker Dube v. Divisional Forest Officer ((2019) 12 SCC 297), State of Haryana v. Tilak Raj ((2003) 6 SCC 23) and State of Punjab v. Surjit Singh ((2009) 9 SCC 514), the Court found that the order of the Writ Court 'has not been complied with in its true spirit'. It directed the opposite party to appear on 19.05.2026 for framing of charges, while leaving him free in the meantime to revisit the 02.05.2026 order in the light of the cited judgments, pass a fresh order after considering them and file an affidavit before the next date; the officer concerned must remain personally present. Case listed on 19.05.2026.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 1614 of 2026

Riyasuddin

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

Sri Jagdish R. Deputy Director, Dudhwa Tigar Reserve, Pallia Kalan Lakhimpur Kheri

.....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Tushar Bhushan
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :

Court No. - 7

HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

Shri Ram Swaroop, learned State Counsel appeared for the opposite party and filed the affidavit of compliance, after providing copy of the same to the learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner, which is taken on record.

Considered the facts as indicated in the affidavit of compliance as also the contents of the order dated 02.05.2026 passed by the opposite party in the light of the fact that the petitioner was initially engaged as daily wager in the month of July, 2012 as also the various pronouncements of Hon'ble Apex Court including in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. and another Vs. Jaggu and others, (2019) 7 SCC 658 ; Sabha Shanker Dube Vs. Divisional Forest Officer & Ors. , ( 2019) 12 SCC 297; State of Haryana Vs. Tilak Raj, (2003) 6 SCC 23 and State of Punjab Vs. Surjit Singh (2009) 9 SCC 514.

Upon due consideration of the aforesaid, this Court finds that the order of the Writ Court has not been complied with in its true spirit.

Accordingly, this Court directs the opposite party to appear before this Court on the next date fixed i.e. 19.05.2026 for framing of charges.

List this case on 19.05.2026.

In the meantime, it is open for the opposite party to revisit the order dated 02.05.2026 in the light of the above judgments, referred above, which shall be passed after considering the aforesaid and file an affidavit in this regard on or before the next date fixed indicated above.

However, it is made clear that on the next date the Officer concerned/opposite party shall remain present before this Court.

May 11, 2026 ML/-

(Saurabh Lavania,J.)

Digitally signed by :- MUNNA LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench