Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

HANUMAT SINGH versus SRI AMAR NATH VERMA D.I.O.S. ALLAHABAD AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Hanumat Singh v. Sri Amar Nath Verma D.I.O.S. Allahabad And Others - CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. 167 of 1995 [2004] RD-AH 533 (13 August 2004)

 

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 OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 48

Civil Misc. Contempt Application No. 167 of 1995

Hanumat Singh............................ Petitioner

Vs.

Sri Amar Nath Verma, D.I.O.S., Allahabad and others.......Respondents

Hon'ble S.P. Mehrotra, J.

List has been revised. Learned counsel for the petitioner / applicant is not present. Learned Standing Counsel for the opposite party is present.

The present contempt petition has been filed under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It is,  interalia, prayed that the opposite parties be punished for having committed contempt of this Court by disobeying the order dated 10.6.1994 passed by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12061 of 1993.

It is, interalia, stated in the contempt petition that one post of Assistant Clerk was vacant in Shivaji Intermediate College, Sahson, Allahabad; and that the Committee of Management after completing the formalities of appointment appointed the petitioner/applicant on the post of Assistant Clerk and the petitioner/applicant joined his services on 27.7.1991 and since then he was regularly working as Assistant Clerk in the said College.

It is, interalia, further stated in the contempt petition  that the salary of the petitioner/applicant for the post of Assistant Clerk was not being paid by the District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad, and as such, the petitioner/applicant filed the aforesaid Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12061 of 1993, Hanumat Singh Vs. District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad and others; and that after the exchange of counter affidavit, this Court passed an order dated 10.6.1994 in the said writ petition, interalia, directing the respondents in the said writ petition to pay salary of the petitioner/applicant in case he was working on his post.

Copy of the said order dated 10.6.2004 has been filed as Annexure-1 to the contempt petition. The said order dated 10.6.1994 is quoted below:

"In the counter affidavit the respondent has admitted the appointment and claim of the petitioner. If the petitioner is working on his post since 27.7.91 he shall be paid his salary until further order of this Court."

It is, interalia, further stated in the contempt petition that the petitioner/applicant served a copy of the said order on the District Inspector of Schools (opposite party in the contempt petition) on 4.7.1994 alongwith an application for payment of salary; and that the Management also sent a letter on 4.7.1994 to the District Inspector of Schools requesting him to grant approval and the fund so that the salary of the petitioner/applicant could be paid.

It is, interalia, further stated in the contempt petition that the Management again sent a letter on 22.9.1994 to the District Inspector of Schools requesting the District Inspector of Schools  to make payment of the salary to the petitioner/applicant; and that the Management again sent a letter to the District of Inspector of Schools as well as to the Accounts Officer on 28.9.1994 requesting for grant of approval  to make payment of the salary of the petitioner/applicant in compliance of the said order dated 10.6.1994; and that despite the said request, the salary of the petitioner/applicant had not been paid till date by the District Inspector of Schools.

By the order dated 31.1.1995, notice was directed to be issued to the opposite parties on the contempt petition.

In response to the notice issued to Amar Nath Verma, District Inspector of Schools (opposite party), he put in appearance and filed his counter affidavit, sworn on 27.3.1995.

It is, interalia, stated in the said counter affidavit that a post of Junior Clerk fell vacant on account of retirement of Jagannath Singh, Senior Clerk in the aforesaid College; and that the then District Inspector of Schools directed the Management by his letter dated 23.9.1991 to fill-up the post of Senior Clerk by way of promotion, and on the post of Junior Clerk the dependent of the deceased lecturer Sri Ram Pratap Singh should be appointed under the Dying in Harness Rules; and that the Management in violation of the direction of the then District Inspector of Schools appointed the petitioner/applicant as Junior Clerk without taking approval from the office of the District Inspector of Schools; and that the appointment of the petitioner/applicant was thus, illegal made by the Management; and that the opposite party wrote to the Management by his letter dated 16.1.1995 to pay the salary and allowances to the petitioner/applicant out of its own resources; and that a detailed counter affidavit alongwith Stay Vacation Application had been filed in the aforesaid writ petition.

By the order dated 14.5.2004, the present contempt petition was directed to be listed alongwith the record of the aforesaid Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12061 of 1993.

A perusal of the record of the said writ petition shows that the said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by the order dated 28.3.2003. The relevant portion of the said order dated 28.3.2003 is quoted below:

"Pleadings have been exchanged on behalf of the parties. During the pendency of the writ petition, a supplementary rejoinder affidavit has been filed, through which a letter dated 27.7.1994 has been brought on record, by means of which the impugned order dated 5.2.1993 has been cancelled. As such in view of the order dated 27.7.1994, prayer No.1 made by the petitioner has become infructuous. It has been stated at the Bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the appointment of Raj Bahadur Singh is not being questioned, and that is why he has not been impleaded as one of the respondents. Pursuant to the orders dated 23.10.1992 and 5.2.1993, Raj Bahadur Singh is functioning and is being paid salary. The order which is being proposed to be passed in the present writ petition, in any way, would  not affect the rights of Raj Bahadur Singh. As the order dated 5.2.1993 has been withdrawn by order dated 27/28.7.1994, its net effect is that the District Inspector of Schools has yet to pass order on the papers pertaining to the appointment of the petitioner on the post of class III employee. In this view of the matter, the District Inspector of Schools is directed to pass appropriate reasoned order on the papers submitted before him pertaining to the validity of appointment of the petitioner as class III employee in the institution expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, and in case, the petitioner's appointment is found to be valid, he shall be paid arrears of salary as well as current salary.

With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of."

From the aforesaid narration of facts, it is evident that the present contempt petition was filed on the ground of the alleged disobedience of the interim order dated 10.6.1994 passed in the aforesaid Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12061 of 1993. It is further evident that the said writ petition itself has been disposed of by the order dated 28.3.2003, interalia, giving various directions.

Evidently, therefore, the present contempt petition based on the alleged disobedience of the interim order passed in the said writ petition has become infructuous.

The contempt petition is accordingly dismissed as having become infructuous.

In view of the dismissal of the contempt petition, show cause notice issued to the opposite party is discharged.

The record of the aforesaid Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12061 of 1993, will be detached from the present Contempt Petition, and sent to the concerned Section.

Dt.13.8.2004

safi


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.