Ved Prakash Pandey vs Ashok Kumar and Another

Sanjay Misra, J.—Heard Sri Rajendra Prasad Tiwari, learned Counsel for the applicant and Sri M.N. Singh, learned Counsel, who has put in appearance on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 1.

Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties.

The Petitioner alleges contempt of the judgment-dated 05.03.2009 passed in the Writ Petition No. 44177 of 2006 (Ved Prakash Pandey v. State of U.P. and Ors.). The aforesaid writ petition was decided on the same terms and conditions as Writ Petition No. 19446 of 2006 had been decided and it was provided that the benefit flowing there from shall be extended to the Petitioner. The judgment dated 21.03.2007 passed in Writ Petition No. 19446 of 2006 (Shree Shankar Bajpayee v. State of U.P. and Ors.) has been filed as Annexure No. 4 to the affidavit supporting this contempt petition. A perusal whereof indicates that the order dated 07.01.2006 passed by the Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad and order dated 04.12.2004 passed by the Nagar Aayukt, Nagar Nigam, were set aside and the Petitioner would be deemed to be reinstated and continuous in service till his retirement. He was also made entitled to be paid all the dues admissible under the service rules and arrears of pay and allowances etc., within 3 months.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner was also terminated along with Shree Shankar Bajpayee on the same date and, therefore, when his writ petition has been decided in the same terms then he would also be entitled to be reinstated and to be paid his salary and all the arrears and allowances. Learned Counsel states that when the opposite parties have not complied with the directions issued by the Writ Court regarding payment of salary and arrears he has filed this contempt petition although he has been reinstated.

Sri M.N. Singh, learned Counsel for the opposite party has referred to his counter affidavit and states that the Petitioner was reinstated in pursuance of the directions issued by the Writ Court, however, he had filed an earlier Contempt Petition No. 3997 of 2009 (Ved Prakash Pandey v. Navneet Sehgal) which was rejected by the order dated 05.11.2009. He refers to the order dated 05.11.2009 and states that since CBCID enquiry is pending, therefore, arrears could not be paid to the Petitioner. The order dated 05.11.2009, filed as Annexure No. 1 to the counter affidavit, is quoted hereunder:

Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and perused the record.

It is contended that despite an order dated 5.3.2009 passed in Writ Petition No. 44197 of 2006, the opposite parties are not paying the arrears of salary etc.

It appears that the services of the applicant were terminated which was subjected to challenge in the aforesaid writ petition and the writ petition was allowed by the said order following the decision of this Court in the case of Shankar Bajpai v. State of U.P. and Ors., in pursuance thereof, the applicant has already been reinstated but the arrears etc. have not been paid since the enquiry by the CB CID against the applicant is still pending and the arrears would be paid after the same. It is apparent from the writ order that the arrears were to be paid subject to the Service Rules and it has not been demonstrated that the order dated 14.5.2009 has not been passed in accordance to Service Rules.

Accordingly, no case for contempt is made out at this stage. Rejected.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner does not deny that the CBCID enquiry is pending. It is not his case that the CBCID enquiry has concluded, therefore, filing of such contempt petition appears to be quite frivolous. Learned Counsel for the applicant has referred to the rejoinder affidavit and states that another person namely Anil Kumar Sharma was also terminated but when contempt petition was filed by Sri Anil Kumar Sharma then an order dated 26.02.2010 was passed for complying with the order of the Writ Court. It is stated that Sri Anil Kumar Sharma has been paid all his arrears and salary and, therefore, the Petitioner is also required to be paid his salary.

Having considered the submission of learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record, insofar as the case of Sri Anil Kumar Sharma is concerned, it appears that in his contempt petition one more opportunity was granted to the opposite party to comply with the order within a month. According to the applicant, the opposite parties have complied with the order and paid the salary and arrears to Sri Anil Kumar Sharma.

Insofar as the Petitioner''s case is concerned, the same does not appear to be on the same footing inasmuch as in an earlier Contempt Petition No. 3997 of 2009 (Ved Prakash Pandey v. Navneet Sehgal) the Contempt Court by the order dated 05.11.2009 (quoted above) clearly rejected the contempt petition by holding that when the Writ Court directed that arrears to be paid subject to service rules and it has been found that CBCID enquiry is pending then the arrears could not be paid to him. Since the said order was passed in the contempt petition filed by the Petitioner himself and there is no averment that the CBCID enquiry has concluded, this second contempt petition appears to be misconceived. There is no reason given in the contempt petition or in the rejoinder affidavit for bringing this contempt petition bonafide. It is, accordingly, rejected.

No order is passed as to costs.