Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

DIRECTOR, NORTH CENTRAL ZONE CULTURAL CENTRAL & ANOTHER versus ANIL KUMAR PATHAK

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Director, North Central Zone Cultural Central & Another v. Anil Kumar Pathak - SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1363 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 17204 (31 October 2007)

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

Chief Justice's Court.

Special Appeal No. 1363 of 2007

Director, North Central Zone Cultural Centre, Allahabad and another Vs. Anil Kumar Pathak and others.

-------------

Hon'ble H.L.Gokhale, C.J.

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and Sri G.K.Singh, who appears for respondent no.1.

The appellants are aggrieved by the interim order passed by the learned Judge on 28.9.2007.

The respondent no.1 was working under the appellants North Central Zone Cultural Centre, Allahabad who joined his services in the year 1987 and his services were terminated on 12th October, 1992.

It is the case of the appellants that respondent no.1 was a temporary employee. He made a representation to the Human Resources Development Ministry. The Ministry directed the appellants to consider his representation. The appellants considered the representation but did not reconsider the decision to terminate the services. Thereafter the respondent no.1 filed a writ petition bearing No. 43343 of 1999. The learned Single Judge of this Court directed the appellants once again to look into the matter. The appellants rejected the request for reconsideration by their decision dated 10.11.1999. Ultimately Writ Petition No. 2512 of 2000 has been filed which is pending before the Single judge.

During the pendency of the writ petition, the learned Single Judge seems to have formed an opinion that the orders passed by the appellants prior to the aforesaid writ petition on two occasions amount to disobedience of the order of the Central Government and thereafter of this Court and amount to contempt.

The appellants are aggrieved by that part of the order.

Mr. G.K.Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 submits to the order of the Court.

We are of the view that there is no question of contempt in view of what has been stated above and in view of the order of the Single Judge who has merely stated that the appellants should have reconsidered the matter.

We allow this appeal, quash and set aside this interim order. The main petition is pending which will be decided on merits after hearing both the parties.

(Rakesh Tiwari) ( Chief Justice )

Dt. 31.10.2007

Sh 1416/07

Chief Justice's Court.

Special Appeal No. 1363 of 2007

Director, North Central Zone Cultural Centre, Allahabad and another Vs. Anil Kumar Pathak and others.

-------------

Hon'ble H.L.Gokhale, C.J.

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and Sri G.K.Singh, who appears for respondent no.1.

The appellants are aggrieved by the interim order passed by the learned Judge on 28.9.2007.

The respondent no.1 was working under the appellants North Central Zone Cultural Centre, Allahabad who joined his services in the year 1987 and his services were terminated on 12th October, 1992.

It is the case of the appellants that respondent no.1 was a temporary employee. He made a representation to the Human Resources Development Ministry. The Ministry directed the appellants to consider his representation. The appellants considered the representation but did not reconsider the decision to terminate the services. Thereafter the respondent no.1 filed a writ petition bearing No. 43343 of 1999. The learned Single Judge of this Court directed the appellants once again to look into the matter. The appellants rejected the request for reconsideration by their decision dated 10.11.1999. Ultimately Writ Petition No. 2512 of 2000 has been filed which is pending before the Single judge.

During the pendency of the writ petition, the learned Single Judge seems to have formed an opinion that the orders passed by the appellants prior to the aforesaid writ petition on two occasions amount to disobedience of the order of the Central Government and thereafter of this Court and amount to contempt.

The appellants are aggrieved by that part of the order.

Mr. G.K.Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 submits to the order of the Court.

We are of the view that there is no question of contempt in view of what has been stated above and in view of the order of the Single Judge who has merely stated that the appellants should have reconsidered the matter.

We allow this appeal, quash and set aside this interim order. The main petition is pending which will be decided on merits after hearing both the parties.

(Rakesh Tiwari) ( Chief Justice )

Dt. 31.10.2007

Sh 1416/07


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.