Allahabad High Court
Chhedi Yadav And 2 Others vs Sri Deepak Meena And 2 Others on 4 October, 2023
Author: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
Bench: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:190444 Court No. - 9 Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 553 of 2022 Applicant :- Chhedi Yadav And 2 Others Opposite Party :- Sri Deepak Meena And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ghan Shyam Yadav Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record.
The writ Court on 25.11.2021 while disposing off Writ-A No. 10590 of 2021 passed the following order;
"1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
2. Today, when the matter has been taken up, it has been informed that Sri Ram Pratap Singh, District Yuva Welfare and Pradeshik Vikasdal Officer, Siddharthnagar is present in the Court.
3. On the previous occasion this Court has passed following order on 25.10.2021 :-
"Petitioners have been working as PRDA from 1989 and after 30 years are removed on the ground that their initial ten days' training certificates are not verified. Reason for non verification is the non availability of such records.
A certificate has been annexed at page 26 of the writ petition, on the basis of which, petitioners have been working for the last 31 years.
The Court is at a loss to understand as to how the admitted records for the last three decades could be ignored and petitioners' ten days' training certificate could be doubted only because records are not available. Petitioners' contention that concerned officer is acting malafide prima facie requires examination.
Respondent no.4 is, therefore, directed to appear before the Court alongwith records on 09.11.2021 and explain his action in light of above observations.
Post as fresh on 09.11.2021."
4. It has been submitted by learned Standing Counsel on the basis of instructions that documents pertaining to training of the petitioners are not available on record and consequent to which an order dated 13th September, 2019 was passed by the Deputy Director, Yuva Welfare and Pradeshik Vikasdal, U.P. in pursuance to which the petitioners have been stopped from assigning duties.
5. Admittedly, order dated 13th September, 2019 has not been given to the petitioner and consequently they are not aware of passing of the said order.
6. Learned Standing Counsel submits that a copy of the order dated 13th September, 2019 shall be given to learned counsel for the petitioners during course of the day.
7. It is surprising that the petitioners are working since last 30 years and they have been assigned duties, but only when exercise of review of records has been undertaken, it was realised that records pertaining to the petitioners is not available with the department, consequently the petitioner have been de-listed and they have not been assigned any further duties. Aggrieved by the act of respondents the petitioners have preferred present writ petition.
8. Perusal of order dated 13th September, 2019, passed by the Deputy Director, Yuva Welfare and Pradeshik Vikasdal, U.P. indicates that in circumstances where it is discovered that a person has not undertaken mandatory training, they shall be allowed to continue to be assigned duties after giving them seven days compulsory training. The said order clearly makes provision for the eventuality as brought forth in the present case and the petitioners who have been working for last 30 years can be continued after giving training.
9. Considering the statement of learned Standing Counsel on the basis of instructions received by him and with the consent of counsel for the parties present writ petition is disposed of terms of order dated 13th September, 2019. It is provided that petitioners shall move representation before respondent no. 4 within a period of 10 days from today and on receipt of such representation respondent no. 4 shall proceed to consider and decide the same in accordance with law, keeping in mind order dated 13th September, 2019, referred to herein above and if found suitable, appropriate training to the petitioners shall be given in the next slot/schedule, and the petitioners shall be continued to be assigned duties and they shall be entitled to all the benefits they were receiving prior to their de-listing.
10. With aforesaid directions the writ petition stands disposed of."
From perusal of the order of writ Court it is clear that writ Court had directed that in case representation is moved by the applicants it was decided by the opposite party.
Complying the order of writ Court the opposite party on 28.04.2022 decided the representation of the applicants, copy of which has been brought on record as annexure No. 1 to the compliance affidavit filed on 05.05.2022.
As the order of writ Court has been complied by the opposite party, no case for contempt is made out.
Contempt application is dismissed, accordingly. However, leaving it open to the applicants to challenge the order passed by the opposite party before the appropriate forum, if so advised.
Contempt notice stands discharged.
File consign to record.
Order Date :- 4.10.2023 Shekhar