AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
20 paragraphs · 693 wordsDevendra Pratap Singh, J.—Charges were framed by the following order dated 13.11.2009:
"By the following order dated 5.10.2009 charges were framed against the opposite party no. 2:
"Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The applicant was duly appointed as a Principal of Kaushalya Devi Jaiswal Intermediate College, Mahrajganj, Jaunpur in 1986 and he was subsequently confirmed. Despite having completed the requisite years of service, he was not paid the selection grade. The management made surplus appointment in the institution which was opposed by the applicant and therefore he was placed under suspension in April 2002 which was challenged in W.P.No.21655 of 2002 wherein the said suspension was stayed vide order dated 22.5.2002. Nevertheless, he was again placed under suspension on similar grounds. It was again challenged through W.P.No.21919 of 2003 and again this Court passed an interim order on 20.5.2003. Despite the order, he was not being paid his salary etc. which forced him to prefer Contempt Petition No. 3740 of 2003 and when the Court was about to frame charges, the opposite party no.2 Sri Jai Prakash Jaiswal, Manager of the Committee accepted his guilt and instead of being proceeded for contempt, offered to pay Rs.50,000/ as compensation. This offer was accepted and the contempt petition was finally disposed off. It is not denied that the order became final. Nevertheless, the claim of the applicant for selection grade was not being considered and thus the petitioner had to approach this Court and a learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.21896 of 2008 disposed off the said petition vide order dated 30.4.2008 directing the District Inspector of Schools to consider his claim. In pursuance thereof the District Inspector of Schools submitted various letters to the Manager for sending the verified service book of the petitioner, but to no avail, forcing him to file this second contempt petition where notices were issued to the Manager and the District Inspector of Schools.
After considering the reply, both the opposite parties were summoned for showing cause why charges be not framed against them.
Today both the opposite parties are present and they have filed their replies.
Having consider their replies, the opposite party no.2 appears to be guilty of contempt and accordingly the following charge is framed against him.
You, Jai Prakash Jaiswal, Manager, Committee of Management, Kaushalya Devi Inter College, Maharajganj, Jaunpur, opposite party no. 2, show cause why you should not be tried and punished for wilful and deliberate violation of the judgment and order dated 12.5.2008 passed in Writ Petition No.21896 of 2008.
Your reply should be filed on or before 13th November 2009 after serving a copy on the counsel for the applicants, who may file a reply, if any, on or before 13th of November 2009.
The cause shall be shown in person by the next date.
The personal appearance of the opposite party no.1 is exempted for the next date and further order would be passed after considering the reply to be submitted by the opposite party no.2.
List on 13th of November 2009."
Today, he is present along with his reply to the show cause stating that all the relevant documents were sent to the District Inspector of Schools on 3.10.2008 which were received on the same date and this fact was also stated in the exemption application filed on 5.10.2009 but the same could not be brought to the notice of the Court.
Le a reply, if any, be filed by the applicant.
The District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur and the Director of Secondary Education shall ensure that the necessary budget is sanctioned and payments are made to the applicant of selection grade which has already been sanctioned.
Let a copy of this order be given to Shri K.R. Singh, learned Standing counsel within 48 hours.
List on 14.12.2009.
The personal presence of the opposite party no. 2 is dispensed with."
Whereafter reply was filed. Learned counsel for the applicant may file an objection to the reply by the next date.
List in the week commencing 18.1.2010 showing the name of Shri A.D. Saunders as counsel for the opposite party also.?
