Allahabad High Court
Dr. Pravir Kumar Gupta vs Dr. Brijendra Singh, Vice ... on 5 October, 2023
Bench: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:64097
Court No. - 4
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 1861 of 2023
Applicant :- Dr. Pravir Kumar Gupta
Opposite Party :- Dr. Brijendra Singh, Vice Chancellor, Chandra Shekhar Azad Univ. Of Agri. And Tech. Kanpur And Ors.
Counsel for Applicant :- Satya Prakash Mishra,Abhishek Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Uttam Kumar Verma
Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.
1. Heard Sri Satya Prakash Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Uttam Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the opposite parties.
2. Sri Uttam Kumar Verma has filed affidavit of compliance along with application for dismissal of the contempt petition, the same is taken on record.
3. Attention has been drawn towards Annexure No.CA-2 of the aforesaid affidavit of compliance, which is an order dated 25.07.2023 passed by the appellate court in Special Appeal Defective No.521 of 2023. For the convenience, the order of the appellate court dated 25.07.2023 is being reproduced herein below:-
"C.M.A. No.1 of 2023 (Application for condonation of delay)
1. Heard Shri Uttam Kumar Verma, learned Counsel for the appellant-Chandra Shekar Azad University of Agriculture and Technology, Kanpur (here-in-after referred to as 'University'), Shri S.P. Misra and Shri Amit Dwivedi, learned Counsel representing the respondent no.1 and learned State Counsel representing the State of Uttar Pradesh.
2. There is reported delay of 32 days delay in filing the instant special appeal.
3. Learned Counsel for the respondents do not have any objection if delay in filing the special appeal is condoned.
4. Cause shown being sufficient and in absence of any objection, the application for condonation of delay is allowed.
5. Office to allot regular number to the present special appeal.
Order on Appeal
(6) The issue involved in this case is as to whether the respondent no.1 is teaching or non-teaching staff working with the University. By means of an order dated 12.04.2023 passed by the Vice-Chancellor of the University it was observed that the employees in the University working on the post of Research Assistant, Senior Research Associate, Research Associate, Junior Research Associate, Senior Technical Assistant and Technical Assistant etc. are non-teaching staff and accordingly in terms of the Rules, they may be superannuated on attaining the age of 60 years. This order dated 12.04.2023 became the subject matter of challenge in various writ petitions, including Writ-A No.3597 of 2023 filed by the respondent no.1.
(7) Learned Single Judge has allowed the said writ petition by means of the judgment and order dated 19.05.2023 in the light of the judgment passed on 17.05.2023 in Writ -A No.3279 of 2023 and connected petitions. It is this judgment and order dated 19.05.2023 which is under challenge before us in this special appeal. Learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petitions has categorically recorded a finding that no opportunity of hearing was granted to the respondent no.1 prior to passing the order which was under challenge in the proceedings of the writ petition whereby services of respondent no.1 were disturbed adversely in relation to various aspects including in terms of their date of retirement. While quashing the order dated 12.04.2023, learned Single Judge has also provided that the respondents therein (appellants herein) shall be at liberty to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.
(8) So far as the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge that the order dated 12.04.2023 was passed in flagrant violation of principles of natural justice is concerned, we find ourselves in complete agreement with the said findings. However, what we further notice is that as a result of the judgment and order dated 17.05.2023, respondent no.1 and other similarly circumstanced employees of the University would be allowed to serve the University till they attain the age of 62 years treating them to be teaching staff though there is no adjudication by learned Single Judge on the issue as to whether respondent no.1 falls in the category of teaching staff or non-teaching staff. Dependent upon determination of this issue, the entitlement will flow to the respondent no.1 either to work and discharge the duties with the University upto the age of 60 years or upto the age of 62 years.
(9) In the aforesaid view of the mater, we dispose of this special appeal with the following directions:-
(i) The appellants-University shall give a show-cause notice to the respondent no.1 within a week from today spelling out the grounds on the basis of which it intends to treat respondent no.1 as belonging to non-teaching staff.
(ii) Respondent no.1 on receipt of notice shall furnish their reply within ten days thereafter.
(iii) On receipt of reply, the matter shall again be considered by none other than the Vice-Chancellor himself who shall take a decision by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a month.
(iv) Till the decision is taken by the Vice-Chancellor afresh under this order, status quo as it exists today shall be maintained by the parties, however, further continuance and other entitlements relating to other service benefits of the respondent no.1 shall be dependent on the outcome of the decision to be taken afresh by the Vice-Chancellor.
(v) We categorically observe and direct that the time-line being stipulated in this order shall strictly be followed by the authorities of the University and for even a slightest deviation from the terms of this order, the Vice-Chancellor of the University shall personally be liable.
(vi) We further direct that in case the decision under this order is taken by the Vice-Chancellor in favour of the respondent no.1, the period from the date the respondent no.1 attains the age of 60 years till decision is taken afresh shall be treated to be regular for all purposes and all service benefits.
(vii) We further direct that respondent no.1 shall fully co-operate with the proceedings to be drawn under this order for taking a decision afresh.
(viii) There will be no order as to costs."
4. Sri Uttam Kumar Verma has submitted that vide para-9 of the aforesaid order, the appellate court has issued seven directions and all the aforesaid directions have been followed. The Vice Chancellor of the University has passed the order dated 06.09.2023 (Annexure No.CA-5) rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, requested that the matter may be adjourned for today to seek instructions from his client but having regard the directions being issued by the appellate court and the order dated 06.09.2023 passed by the Vice Chancellor of the University, I do not find any good ground to keep this contempt petition pending any longer inasmuch as nothing remains to be adjudicated in the present contempt petition.
5. Accordingly, this contempt petition is dismissed.
6. Notices are discharged.
7. However, it is always open for the petitioner to assail the order dated 06.09.2023 passed by the Vice Chancellor of the University before the competent court of law.
[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]
Order Date :- 5.10.2023
RBS/-
