Allahabad High Court
Anil Kumar Gupta vs Deepak Meena,Collector And Another on 31 May, 2024
Author: Ajit Kumar
Bench: Ajit Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:100492
Court No. - 4
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 2653 of 2022
Applicant :- Anil Kumar Gupta
Opposite Party :- Deepak Meena,Collector And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- In Person
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
1. A compliance affidavit has been filed by the Director (Pension), U.P. dated 24.05.2024 and the Director Sri Arun Kumar Singh is also present in Court. He is represented through learned Standing Counsel.
2. Series of orders previously passed in the matter clearly demonstrate that every time the Court had to pass specific order to ensure that there is a proper compliance of the judgment and order passed by this Court in Special Appeal. This shows a clear conduct of hide and seek on the part of the officers of the State Department.
3. Today of course a compliance affidavit has been filed stating therein that now the commutation of pension has also been done and amount of pension to the extent of 40% of the pension has been paid to the petitioner and the same has got credited into his account but the petitioner who is present before this Court laments that has been forced to litigation of contempt despite the order passed by special appellate bench dated 25.07.2023.
4. Seeing the conduct of the respondents concerned a case is definitely made out to put them under charge for a deliberate attempt to violate the orders of this Court not only passed by special appellate bench but even the orders passed by this Court hearing this contempt petition.
5. The valid defence which is now set up in the compliance affidavit is that earlier the petitioner had refused for the commutation of pension as a cross mark in front of clause 9 of pension and gratuity papers was there, but I do not see any signature of the petitioner on the said document. Now another document has been placed before the Court dated 21.05.2024 upon which commutation of pension was sanctioned.
6. Petitioner states that he was not called to sign any paper on 21.05.2024, however, he does not dispute his signatures on the document.
7. Besides the above, I find that even while fixation of salary for payment of arrears of salary to the tune of 50% was being done as payment of 50% of salary was directed by the special appellate bench, the authorities had wholly incorrectly fixed the salary which upon being questioned by the petitioner before this Court and the court passing appropriate orders was further rectified subsequently and the compliance affidavit was filed.
8. Petitioner has retired. A person who is not in service should not ordinarily be penalized by the State who is to act as a model employer to act as an unnecessary litigation and even if he in a particular circumstances, approaches the Court and court passes a decree or order, then if the State is the respondent then it should readily accept the same and comply with the such decree and order or in its discretion may even question the same at a higher forum. The order passed by the special appellate bench was never challenged before the Supreme Court which is the highest court of appeal in the land.
9. In such circumstances, therefore, thee conduct of the authorities of the State department cannot be appreciated. However, since it is a civil contempt and the order has been complied with though the petitioner disputes certain points on the question of fixation of pay and the consequential pension in terms of quantum of increments periodically awarded to him, I consider it appropriate to hold that there is sufficient compliance.
10. Liberty rests with the petitioner to file appropriate petition for correction of any fixation of increment, if it is not done lawfully.
11. With these observations and liberty, this petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 31.5.2024
IrfanUddin
