Ms. Manjari Singh vs Sri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, M.D. and Chief Executive Officer, I.O.B., Chennai and Another

Heard Shri Alok Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Jaideep Narayan Mathur, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Avinash Chandra, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶11

The present contempt application has been preferred for alleged noncompliance of the judgment and order of the Writ Court dated 07.08.2023 passed in Writ A No. 4643 of 2023. The relevant portion of the said judgment and order is being reproduced hereinbelow:-

¶12

"18. From perusal of the aforesaid notes that were put up before the Chairman and Managing Director and the orders passed thereon it is apparent that the Chairman and Managing Director has passed on the decision to terminate on the subordinate officials which clearly is not a procedure prescribed under the Regulations 1979. Once the regulation categorically provided that the decision to terminate the services is to be taken by the Chairman and Managing Director alone as such there was no question of the Chairman and Managing Director requiring the other officials of the Bank to take a decision based on the explanation submitted by the employees concerned.

¶13

19. Keeping in view the aforesaid, it is apparent that the impugned termination order passed by the General Manager dated 01.02.2022, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition, runs foul to the specific procedure prescribed under Regulations 1979. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 01.02.2022 is quashed.

¶14

20. As the appellate order dated 02.06.2023, a copy of which is Annexure-2 to the writ petition, is based on the termination order dated 01.02.2022, as such, the said order is also quashed.

¶15

21. Consequences to follow."

¶16

CAPL No. 341 of 2024

¶17

2

¶18

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the judgment and order dated 07.08.2023 has been served upon respondents on 28.08.2023 but they had chosen not to reinstate the applicant despite the termination order was set aside by this Court and on 12.09.2023 again a fresh termination order has been passed against the applicant. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anantdeep Singh Vs. High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2449 particularly para no. 21 thereof .

¶19

It has further been submitted that the respondents are liable to be punished under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

¶20

On the other hand, Shri Jaideep Narayan Mathur, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Avinash Chandra, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the termination order of the applicant was set aside solely on the ground of procedural lapse as it was not approved by the competent authority and after the service of representation on 28.08.2023, a fresh order has been passed on 12.09.2023 by the competent authority terminating services of the applicant and as per the judgment relied by learned counsel for the applicant particularly para no. 21 thereof, the applicant is entitled for salary for the period from 07.08.2023 i.e. the date of judgment till the termination of the applicant i.e. on 12.09.2023.

¶21

It is further submitted that against the termination order dated 12.09.2023, a writ petition was filed by the applicant, which was dismissed against which a special appeal was preferred, which was also dismissed and thereafter a departmental appeal was preferred by the applicant, which was also dismissed, which has never been challenged by the applicant thereafter.

¶22

Learned counsel for the applicant is unable to dispute the submissions advanced by learned Senior Advocate except that in the Special Appeal, the Division Bench has observed that by dismissal of the special appeal, the right of the applicant herein will not be prejudiced as far as contempt application is concerned.

¶23

CAPL No. 341 of 2024

¶24

3

¶25

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case as well as the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anantdeep Singh (supra), it is found that the applicant is entitled for the salary w.e.f. 07.08.2023 to 12.09.2023 for which Shri J.N. Mathur, learned Senior Advocate representing the respondents has given an undertaking on the basis of instructions received from the respondents that the same will be paid to the applicant within a period of ten days, if already not paid.

¶26

List this case in the week commencing 26.01.2026.

¶27

(Manish Kumar,J.)

¶28

January 13, 2026

¶29

Ashish

¶30

Digitally signed by :- ASHISH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ms. Manjari Singh v. Sri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, M.D. and Chief Executive Officer, I.O.B., Chennai and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms. Manjari Singh v. Sri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, M.D. and Chief Executive Officer, I.O.B., Chennai and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Arbaz @ Mohd. Arbaz vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Akhilesh Kumar Tripathi and 3 Others vs Prof. Soniya Nityanand Vice Chancellor, Kgmu, Lko. and Another

Syed Hussain Mohd. Rizvi vs Dr. Prdeep Kumar, Joint Director of Secondary Education Lko. and Another

Smt. Rachana Gupta @ Rachana Kashyap vs Sri Sanjay Jain, Cheif Medical Officer Ayodhya

Shobhit Srivastava and 4 Others vs Vinod Singh Rawat, Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Law, Legal Remembrance, Civil Secrtt. Lko.

Anil Kumar Jaiswal vs Amit Kumar Ghosh Prin. Secy. Medical and Health Services Lko. and Another