Court No. - 4
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 1649 of 2021 Applicant :- Radhey Shyam Tiwari Opposite Party :- Vinay Kumar Pandey, Director Of Education Counsel for Applicant :- Samarath Singh,Hritudhwaj Pratap Sahi
Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
The applicant is before this Court for a direction to initiate contempt proceeding against the opposite party for wilful disobedience of the order dated 22.1.2020 passed in Writ A No.64318 of 2014. The operative portion of the order is reproduced hereibelow :-
"Heard Sri V.K.Singh, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Shekhar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondent nos.1, 2 and 3.
This writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 27.4.2010 passed by Director of Education (Secondary), U.P., Lucknow.
This case has a checkered history. The facts as disclosed in the writ petition are that petitioner was appointed on the post of Teacher L.T.Grade in Amar Shaheed Shri Kaushal Kumar Ucchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Naraingarh, Ballia, which fell vacant on account of resignation of one Bal Krishna Rai on 18.2.1990. It seems that the Committee of Management issued an appointment letter on 10.7.1991. The approval was granted by the District Inspector of Schools. He was paid salary from September 1994 to June, 1995, but, thereafter his salary was stopped. Petitioner approached this Court through Writ Petition No.20283 of 1993, which was disposed of vide order dated 30.9.1999 quashing the order dated 2.8.1991 and it was held that petitioner was entitled to salary. It seems that respondent no.2, on 29.9.2006, decided the claim of petitioner and accepted his claim.
In the meantime, one Usha Pandey approached this Court through Writ-A No.16634 of 2010, wherein this Court on 28.4.2010 observed that the Director of Education (Secondary) found that approval granted to petitioner was forged. It was directed that why not the salary paid to petitioner be recovered from the Director. The order passed on 28.4.2010 is reproduced herein:
"Standing Counsel states that the Director of Education (Secondary) has passed an order dated 27.04.2010 and has found that approval letter dated 25.06.1991 was a forged document. Therefore, Radhey Shyam Tewari, respondent no. 5 was not entitled to payment of salary from State exchequer. The District Inspector of Schools in compliance of the said order on 27.04.2010 has also issued an order cancelling the earlier order dated 27.10.2006 whereby salary was released in favour of Radhey Shyam Tewari. It has taken four years for the Director to grow wiser and that too only when this Court has noticed that qua one teacher it was stated that the order of approval was forged while in respect of second teacher namely Radhey Shyam Tewari whose appointment was also approved under the same letter dated 25.06.1991, was being paid salary.
The Director shall remain present before this Court along with his personal affidavit categorically stating as to why this Court may not direct that the entire salary paid to Radhey Shyam Tewari under the order of the Director, be not recovered from the personal assets of the Director himself.
The original records including the despatch register shall again be produced on 04.05.2010.
Put up on 04.05.2010."
The petitioner has challenged the order passed by respondent no.2, dated 27.4.2010 on the ground that it was an exparte order and he was not given chance to place his version of the case before the order was passed.
On the other hand, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submitted that the matter is pending before the CBCID and despatch register has been summoned by the said authority and the appointment of petitioner was found forged in the inquiry.
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perusal of record, it appears that on the basis of the directions in Writ-A No.16634 of 2010, Usha Pandey vs. State of U.P. and others, respondent no.2 had proceeded to hold that approval granted on 25.6.1991, was forged and manipulated as the same does not find place in the despatch register. As the services of petitioner was being terminated, respondent no.2 should have issued the notice to petitioner calling his version before passing the impugned order.
Though petitioner was made a party in the writ petition filed by Usha Pandey (supra), but the same was withdrawn on 8.9.2014 by the petitioner in that writ petition, as such, petitioner could not place his case either before that Court nor before Director of Education (Secondary).
In view of the above, respondent no.2, i.e., Director of Education (Secondary) U.P., Lucknow is directed to consider and decide the matter in accordance with law by a reasoned and speaking order expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
Writ petition stands disposed of. "
Today when the matter is taken up, it is informed by learned counsel for the applicant that the order passed by the writ court has already been complied with, therefore, no cause of action remained survive and prays that the present application be dismissed as infructuous.
In view of the same, the present contempt application is dismissed as infructuous.
Order Date :- 29.7.2021 Pramod Tripathi