Kamla Prasad vs Vijay Kumar, Director General Of ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 297 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Kamla Prasad vs Vijay Kumar, Director General Of ... on 4 January, 2024

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:994
 
Court No. - 19
 

 
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 3594 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Kamla Prasad
 
Opposite Party :- Vijay Kumar, Director General Of Police, Lko. And Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Vinod Kumar
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Gyanesh Kumar Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.
 

On 12-01-2023, the following order was passed in Writ A No. 8002 of 2022 :-

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

By means of this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus to the respondents to add service period of petitioner spent in army prior to the appointment in the police department.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the above regard the petitioner has already represented the matter before the competent authority on 25.12.2019 which has not been disposed of till date.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner's service rendered in the army establishment of Government of India is required to be added in the light of two judgments of this Court, firstly in the case of Hari Chand and others v. State of U.P. and others passed in Writ - A No.- 36642 of 2015 on 23rd August, 2016 and secondly in the case of Bimal Kumar Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others passed in Writ-A No.- 12064 of 2021 on 1st November, 2021.

Learned Standing Counsel has no objection in the event if a direction is issued to the competent authority for disposal of the claim of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law.

In view of the above, this petition stands disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to make a fresh comprehensive representation for the purposes of relief claimed for before the competent authority, namely, respondent No.- 4 within a period of three weeks from today and it is further provided that in the event any such representation is made before the respondent No.- 4, he shall look into and consider the grievance of the petitioner in the light of the relevant Law, Rule and the Act and pass appropriate reasoned and speaking order strictly in accordance with law preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. "

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that though the representation of the petitioner has been decided, but, the benefit which was accorded to the identically situated persons, has not been accorded to the present petitioner. Thus, there is a gross contempt of the order passed by this court dated 12-01-2023.

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State submitted that the order dated 12-01-2023 has been complied with in it's letter and spirit as the representation of the petitioner has been decided vide order dated 23-11-2023.

Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties, this court is of the considered opinion that there is a direction for deciding the representation of the petitioner, which has been decided vide order dated 23-11-2023.

Therefore, no contempt is made out. Hence, the contempt notices are hereby discharged.

The contempt petition is dismissed.

If the petitioner feels aggrieved with the order dated 23-11-2023, he may approach the appropriate court/forum.

Consigned to records.

Order Date :- 4.1.2024

AKS