Allahabad High Court
Ram Lakhan Yadav Meth And Ors. vs Nitin Ramesh Gokaran Prin. Secy. ... on 24 March, 2023
Bench: Abdul Moin
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 8
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 1452 of 2020
Applicant :- Ram Lakhan Yadav Meth And Ors.
Opposite Party :- Nitin Ramesh Gokaran Prin. Secy. P.W.D. Lucknow
Counsel for Applicant :- S.P. Singh Somvanshi
Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.
1. Heard.
2. Admittedly, in pursuance to the order passed by the Writ Court dated 20.02.2020 in Writ Petition No. 4900 (S/S) of 2020 passed in re: Ram Lakhan Yadav and others vs State of U.P. and others which required the respondents to decide the representation of the applicants in the light of the judgement of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Prem Singh vs State of U.P. and others passed in Civil Appeal No. 6798 of 2019, the representation has been decided vide the order dated 03.11.2020, a copy of which is annexure C-1 to the compliance affidavit dated 10.11.2020.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants contends that the respondents in their compliance affidavit have contended that subsequent to the judgement of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Prem Singh (supra) the Uttar Pradesh Qualifying Service for Pension and Validation Ordinance, 2020 has been issued on 21.10.2020 (now Uttar Pradesh Qualifying Service for Pension and Validation Act, 2021). He argues that merely because the Act, 2021 has been issued, the same cannot be construed that the judgement of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Prem Singh (supra) stands diluted and hence the respondents run in contempt of the order passed by the Writ Court.
4. The other submission is that even after the passing of the Act, 2021 various orders have been passed by the Writ Court requiring the respondents to adhere to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prem Singh (supra) and in pursuance thereto various compliance affidavits have been filed by the respondents. He also states that the division bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 97 of 2021 in re: State of U.P. and and others vs Bhanu Pratap Sharma has held that the excuse being taken by the respondents of the Act, 2021 having come into force would not be a ground for them to not comply with the directions of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Prem Singh (supra). It is also contended that S.L.P. filed against the judgement of Bhanu Pratap Sharma (supra) has also been dismissed by Hon'ble the Apex Court.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record what emerges is that the order of the Writ Court was for deciding the representation of the applicants in light of the judgement of Prem Singh (supra). Admittedly, the respondents have decided the representation of the applicants vide the order dated 03.11.2020 in which they have contended that with the promulgation of the Ordinance, 2020 now Act, 2021 the definition of "qualifying service" has changed and thus the judgement of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Prem Singh (supra) would not be applicable and consequently have rejected the representation of the applicants. Once the representation has been rejected it cannot be said the respondents now are in deliberate and wilful disobedience and defiance of the judgement and order passed by the Writ Court. May be that as per the interpretation given by the learned counsel for the applicants some other situation could be possible wherein a compliance could be made but then once the respondents as per their own accord have understood the judgement in the light of the judgement of Prem Singh (supra) as well as the Act, 2021 it cannot be said that there is any deliberate and wilful disobedience and defiance on their part which requires the contempt Court to interfere and to interpret the judgement in a particular manner.
6. Considering the aforesaid, no case for contempt is made out. The contempt petition is dismissed. The notices are discharged. However the applicants would be at liberty to challenge the order passed on the representation before appropriate court in appropriate proceedings.
Order Date :- 24.3.2023
J.K. Dinkar
