प्रयागराज. इलाहाबाद हाईकोर्ट (Allahabad High Court) ने उत्तर प्रदेश की माध्यमिक शिक्षा सचिव आराधना शुक्ला को अवमानना नोटिस जारी किया है. हाईकोर्ट ने उन्हें 13 जुलाई तक आदेश के अनुपालन का हलफनामा देने या कारण बताने का निर्देश दिया है. साथ ही कहा है कि क्यों न उनके खिलाफ आरोप निर्मित कर जान-बूझकर आदेश की अवहेलना करने के लिए दंडित किया जाए? याचिका की सुनवाई 13 जुलाई को होगी. यह आदेश न्यायमूर्ति एसपी केशरवानी ने रेवती इंटर कालेज, बलिया से बड़े बाबू पद से 2012 में सेवानिवृत्त राम सिंह की अवमानना याचिका पर दिया है.जानकारी के अनुसार दो बार अवमानना याचिका पर आदेश पालन का अतिरिक्त समय दिया गया लेकिन इसके बाद भी याची को भुगतान नहीं किया गया. इसके बाद याची ने अब सचिव को दंडित करने की मांग के साथ तीसरी अवमानना याचिका दाखिल की है.
प्रकरण बलिया जनपद के अशासकीय सहायता प्राप्त रेवती इंटर कॉलेज से क्लर्क पद से सेवानिवृत्त राम सिंह का है।
जिनके वेतन का भुगतान पद की वैधता पर उठे सवालों पर 2007 से रोक दिया गया. वह 31 अक्तूबर 2012 को सेवानिवृत्त हो गया. राज्य सरकार ने 16 मार्च 2016 को आदेश दिया कि माध्यमिक शिक्षा निदेशक की संस्तुति पर याची का भुगतान किया जाएगा. निदेशक ने राज्य सरकार को अपनी संस्तुति भेज दी किन्तु बकाया वेतन व सेवानिवृत्ति परिलाभों का भुगतान नहीं हुआ. इसके बाद हाईकोर्ट ने सचिव को निर्णय लेने का निर्देश दिया. दो बार अवमानना याचिका पर आदेश पालन का अतिरिक्त समय दिया, फिर भी भुगतान नहीं हुआ. तो तीसरी बार यह याचिका दाखिल कर सचिव को दंडित करने की मांग की गई है.
ALLAHABAD
?Court No. – 5
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. – 1836 of 2020
Applicant :- Sri Ram Singh
Opposite Party :- Aradhana Shukla, Principal Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha
Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Shish Ram
Hon’ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
The applicant has filed Writ-A No.6724 of 2018 (Sri Ram Singh vs. State of U.P. through, Madhyamik Government of U.P. and 3 others), which was disposed of by order dated 26.02.2018, as under:-
“Petitioner was a Head Clerk in Rewati Inter College, Rewati, Ballia, who has attained the age of superannuation on 31.10.2012. It appears that payment of salary to petitioner was stopped on account of certain dispute raised with regard to existence of posts in the year 2007. The matter was ultimately examined by the State Government and an order dated 16.3.2016 was passed by the Principal Secretary stating that in respect of the petitioner a decision to pay salary would be taken after specific instructions are obtained from the Director of Education (Secondary). It is contended that the District Inspector of Schools vide his letter dated 3.8.2017 has forwarded the claim of petitioner to the Director of Education. It is further stated in para 12 that the Director has also forwarded the claim of the State Government but thereafter no decision has been taken so far. It is stated that petitioner has been denied salary between 2007 to 2012 and his retiral benefits are withheld. Claim of petitioner is yet to be examined in terms of the order dated 16.3.2016.
Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State authorities submits that claim of the petitioner shall be considered in accordance with law.
Considering the nature of order proposed to be passed notices are not being issued to respondent no.4 and the writ petition is being disposed of at this stage itself.
In the facts and circumstances, noticed above, this writ petition stands disposed of with a direction upon respondent no.1 to examine claim of petitioner for release of arrears of salary between the period 2007 to 2012 as well as with regard to release of retiral benefits within a period of three months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. ”
The applicant filed a certified copy of the order before the concerned authority but the said order was not complied with. The applicant filed Contempt Application (Civil) No.4753 of 2018 (Ram Singh vs. Sanjay Agrawal), which was disposed off by order dated 10.09.2018, as under:
“In terms of order dated 26.2.2018 in Writ-A No.6724 of 2018, the opposite party was under mandate to examine the claim of the applicant for release of arrears of salary within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.
Counsel for the applicant submitted that a certified copy of the order of the Writ Court was sent to the opposite party by registered post on 16.3.2018 followed by reminder dated 31.3.2018, but no final decision has been taken in the matter so far.
This Court is of the opinion that before inaction on part of the opposite party in complying with the above direction is treated as wilful disobedience of the order of the Writ Court, one more opportunity be granted to him to ensure compliance of the said order.
Accordingly, the instant contempt application is disposed of with liberty to the applicant to file a certified copy of this order alongwith fresh representation before the opposite party and in which event, he shall ensure that decision in due compliance of the direction issued by the Writ Court is taken within next eight weeks. In case the decision is yet not taken, as directed herein, it shall be open to the applicant to initiate fresh contempt proceedings against the opposite party. ”
Despite the aforesaid order passed in the contempt application, the opposite party has not complied with the order of the writ court. Therefore, the applicant filed a second Contempt Application (Civil) No.6592 of 2019 (Sri Ram Singh vs. Aradhana Shukla, Principal Secretary), which was disposed off by order dated 05.11.2019, as under:
“In response to the order dated 1.10.2019, Sri Devesh Vikram, learned Standing Counsel has placed the instruction sent by the Special Secretary of the Department indicating therein that the process is on to finalise the arrears of salary to the applicant w.e.f. 2007 to 2012 and as such for extending said benefit, some reasonable time has been asked for. The said instruction is taken on record.
Suffice to indicate, the opposite party must comply with the order of Writ Court within six weeks from today and the entire benefit has to be extended to the applicant within the said period.
With the aforesaid observation, this application is disposed of at this stage with liberty to the applicant to move a fresh application, if the order is not complied with by the opposite party within the stipulated time as aforementioned. ”
Now, this third contempt application has been filed by the applicant due to non-compliance of the order of the writ court by the opposite party.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as briefly noted above, prima facie, it appears that the opposite party has deliberately and wilfully disobeyed the afore-quoted order of the writ court and thus, has rendered herself liable for punishment under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Issue notice to the opposite party.
Before the next date fixed, the opposite party shall file an affidavit of compliance or show cause as to why charges may not be framed to punish her for contempt under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Put up in the additional cause list on 13.07.2020 before the appropriate bench.
Order Date :- 10.6.2020
NLY
