Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2021
  6. /
  7. January

Dileep Kumar Srivastava vs Ram Ramana

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|29 July, 2021
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Court No. - 4
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 2188 of 2021 Applicant :- Dileep Kumar Srivastava Opposite Party :- Ram Ramana, Principal Secretary U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Srivastava,Pankaj Kumar Shukla
Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the applicant.
The applicant is before this Court for a direction to initiate contempt proceeding against the opposite parties for wilful disobedience of the order dated 08.01.2019 passed in Special Appeal No.126 of 2009 (Dileep Kumar Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. & others.). The operative portion of the aforesaid order is quoted as under:-
"25. In the light of above exposition of law and complying 'Rule of law' with equal force, we find it difficult to hold State Government, in the present case, responsible for payment of salary of employees of UPICA. Atleast this Court finds it difficult to justify such direction for the reason that funds available with State are nobody's private property, but, it is tax-payers money, which has to be utilized in the manner legislature has passed in the proposed budget and responsibility of State cannot be extended to the employees of bodies, which cannot be said to be department of State and where we find no provision available in law to make State Government responsible or obliged to ensure payment of salary of employees of such bodies. Relationship of employer and employee is a privity of contract between employer and employee. Employer being UPICA, a Society under Act, 1965, in absence of any provision, its responsibility cannot be transferred or shifted to State Government.
26. In view thereof, judgment of learned Single Judge, insofar as it has directed that State Government must ensure payment of salary, arrears and other dues of employees of UPICA cannot be sustained. To this extent, judgment in question is hereby set aside. In the result all the appeals are partly allowed. However, this order shall not be construed so as not to take appropriate steps by UPICA to ensure payment of dues to its employees including petitioners. We also make it clear that in case State Government, on its own, is taking any step to provide funds/financial assistance to UPICA, to clear off its liability including salary of its employees, the same may proceed and this order shall not preclude State Government from doing so."
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that a copy of the aforesaid order was submitted for compliance before the opposite parties but the opposite parties have willfully not complied with the order and, thus, have committed civil contempt liable for punishment under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Prima facie a case of contempt has been made out. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, one more opportunity is afforded to the opposite parties to comply with the aforesaid order of the Court within two months from the date of production of a copy of this order.
The applicant shall supply a duly stamped registered envelope addressed to the opposite parties and another self-addressed stamped envelope to the office within two weeks from today. The office shall send a copy of this order along with the self-addressed stamped envelope of the applicant with a copy of contempt application to the opposite parties within one week, thereafter and keep a record thereof. The opposite party shall comply with the directions of the writ Court and intimate the applicant of the order through the self-addressed envelop within a week, thereafter.
With the aforesaid observations, 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 parties within the stipulated time as aforementioned.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 29.7.2021 saqlain
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Dileep Kumar Srivastava vs Ram Ramana

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
29 July, 2021
Judges
  • Prakash Padia
Advocates
  • Santosh Kumar Srivastava Pankaj Kumar Shukla