Allahabad High Court
Raj Narayan vs Devendra Kumar Pandey, District ... on 9 July, 2019
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 10
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 4052 of 2019
Applicant :- Raj Narayan
Opposite Party :- Devendra Kumar Pandey, District Basic Education Officer And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Upendra Kumar
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant.
The applicant is before this Court for a direction to initiate contempt proceeding against the opposite parties for wilful disobedience of the order dated 12.07.2018 passed in Writ Petition No.14653 of 2018 (Raj Narayan v. State of U.P. & Ors.), which for ready reference is quoted as under:-
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. No one appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
This writ petition has been filed praying for the following relief:
(a) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to deduct the General Provident Fund (G.P.F.) amount from the salary of the petitioner, according to the benefits of the old pension scheme as define in rule 4 of General Provident Fund Rule, 1985, amended on 07-04-2005.
(b) Issue any other suitable writ order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.
It is stated in paragraphs 3 and 4 that the petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground on 03.03.2005 and he joined the service as Assistant Teacher in Primary School, Balepatti, Block Aharaura, District Azamgarh on 04.03.2005. On these facts, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the benefit of Old Pension Scheme and G.P.F. is available to the petitioner in terms of the judgement dated 18.05.2018 in Writ-A No.22142 of 2011 (Mahesh Prasad & Others vs. State of U.P. and Others) and writ petition deserves to be allowed.
The factual position of appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground on 04.03.2005 as Assistant Teacher is not being disputed by the learned Standing Counsel.
In view of the facts as stated in the writ petition and briefly noted above, the petitioner being a compassionate appointee who was appointed prior to 01.04.2005, is entitled for the benefit of Old Pension Scheme and the G.P.F. in terms of the judgement in the case of Mahesh Prasad & others (supra). Therefore, the writ petition is allowed in terms of the aforesaid judgement in the case of Mahesh Prasad and others (supra)."
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that a certified copy of the aforesaid order was submitted for compliance before the opposite parties but the opposite parties have wilfully not complied with the order and, thus, have committed civil contempt liable for punishment under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Prima facie a case of contempt has been made out. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, one more opportunity is afforded to the opposite parties to comply with the aforesaid order of the Court within four weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
The applicant shall supply a duly stamped registered envelope addressed to the opposite parties and another self-addressed stamped envelope to the office within one week from today. The office shall send a copy of this order along with the self-addressed stamped envelope of the applicant with a copy of contempt application to the opposite parties within one week, thereafter and keep a record thereof. The opposite party shall comply with the directions of the writ Court and intimate the applicant of the order through the self-addressed envelop within a week, thereafter.
With the aforesaid observations, this application is disposed of at this stage with liberty to the applicant to move a fresh application, if the order is not complied with by the opposite parties within the stipulated time as aforementioned.
Order Date :- 9.7.2019
SP/
