# Mewalal & Ors v. Sri Rajeev Kumar-II Prin. Secy.(Appointments) Admin. & Ors

- **Citation:** Contempt Appeal No. 2067 of 2016
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-02-28
- **Case number:** Contempt Appeal No. 2067 of 2016
- **Bench:** Karunesh Singh Pawar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mewalal-ors-v-sri-rajeev-kumar-ii-prin-secy-appointments-admin-ors-46289
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Puneet Chandra, Pankaj Khare

Petitioners-retrenched employees-claimed
absorption
by
filing
Writ-District
Magistrate-no compliance-contempt filedState Government passed an order-fresh
cause of action-no wilful disobedience-no
fresh direction can be passed in Contempt
afresh.

Held, In the case in hand, since no direction
was issued vide judgment and order dated
2.5.2016 passed in Special Appeal No.522 of
2012 nor any direction was issued in special
Appeal No.110 of 2013, therefore, in view of the
law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Sudhir Vasudeva's case (supra), this court being
the Court of contempt cannot travel beyond
what has been ordered by the writ Court/special
appellate court and therefore, I am not inclined
to proceed against the contemners for alleged
non-compliance of
order dated
30.8.2019
passed by the contempt court. (para 13) (E-9)

Cases Cited:

## Text

1016 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and
the order was passed on surmises and
conjectures and no valid reason was given
in the impugned order for not considered
the petitioner for daily wager sweeper in
the light of the Circular dated 01.11.1999.

16. The denial of appointing the petitioner
on the post of daily wager sweeper is against
the principles of natural justice and also in
violation of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the
Constitution of India.

17. In view of the above discussion and
argument advanced by learned counsel for the
parties, the impugned order dated 16.07.2016
passed by respondent no.3 is quashed and the
matter is remanded back to the respondent no.3
to consider the claim of the petitioner afresh in
the light of the Circular dated 01.11.1999 issued
by Chief Engineer, P.W.D. U.P. Lucknow and
pass a reasoned and speaking order in
accordance with law within a period of two
months from the date of production of the
certified copy of this order, thereafter , the
respondent no.3 shall communicate the order
passsed by him to the petitioner forthwith.

18. With the aforesaid observations, the
writ petition is finally disposed of.

19. No order as to costs.
----------
(2020)03-05ILR A1016
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 28.02.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

Contempt Appeal No. 2067 of 2016

Mewalal & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
Sri
Rajeev
Kumar-II
Prin.
Secy.(Appointments) Admin. & Ors.
 ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Ram Kumar Verma

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Puneet Chandra, Pankaj Khare

Petitioners-retrenched employees-claimed
absorption
by
filing
Writ-District
Magistrate-no compliance-contempt filedState Government passed an order-fresh
cause of action-no wilful disobedience-no
fresh direction can be passed in Contempt
afresh.

Held, In the case in hand, since no direction
was issued vide judgment and order dated
2.5.2016 passed in Special Appeal No.522 of
2012 nor any direction was issued in special
Appeal No.110 of 2013, therefore, in view of the
law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Sudhir Vasudeva's case (supra), this court being
the Court of contempt cannot travel beyond
what has been ordered by the writ Court/special
appellate court and therefore, I am not inclined
to proceed against the contemners for alleged
non-compliance of
order dated
30.8.2019
passed by the contempt court. (para 13) (E-9)

Cases Cited:

1. V. Kanakrajan Vs. General Manager South
Eastern Railway & ors. (1996) 10 SCC 102

2. J.S. Parihar Vs. Ganpat Duggar & ors. (1996)
6 SCC 291

3. Sudhir Vasudeva Chairman and Managing
Director, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation
Limited & ors. Vs M. George Ravishekaran &
ors., (2014)3 SCC 373

(Delivered by Hon'ble Karunesh Singh
Pawar, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioners and Shri Ramesh Kumar Singh,
3-5 All. Mewalal & Ors. Vs.Sri Rajeev Kumar-II Prin. Secy.(Appointment) Admin. & Ors.
1017
learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri
Pankaj Khare, Advocate for respondents.

2. Petitioners have preferred contempt
petition alleging non-compliance of order
dated 02.05.2016 passed in Special Appeal
No. 522/2012 (Mewa Lal and others Vs.
State of U.P. and others) whereby the
appellate court while setting aside the
judgment and order dated 05.1.2012 of
learned Single Judge directed the opposite
party to consider the case of the appellants
in the light of judgment dated 26.02.2013
passed in Special Appeal No. 110 of 2013
State of U.P. and others versus Pramod
Kumar and others.

3. It has been pleaded on behalf of the
petitioners that the petitioners are the
retrenched employees of the Directorate of
Census Operation, U.P., Lucknow. The
work and conduct of the petitioners have all
throughout been good. Government Orders
have been issued for absorption and
appointment of the retrenched employees
of the Census Department while relaxing
age against vacant post(s) lying in different
Departments. Copies of the Government
Orders dated 21.08.2007 and 09.10.2007
are annexed with the petition as Annexures
3 and 4 respectively.

Pursuant
to
the
Government
Orders, the petitioners approached the
respondent-authorities for absorption in the
other Government Departments but since
the respondents have not considered the
grievance of the petitioners, hence, the
petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 5602
(S/S) of 2009 and writ petition No. 7672
(S/S) of 2009. The Hon'ble Single Judge
vide judgment and orders dated 14.09.2009
and
20.11.2009
directed
District
Magistrate, Barabanki to consider the
petitioners' case for absorption keeping in
view of the aforesaid Government Orders
against the post of Lekhpal/Collection
Amin or any other vacant post.

It is further pleaded that instead
of complying the judgment and orders
passed by the learned Single Judge dated
14.09.2009
and
20.11.2009
regarding
petitioner Nos. 12 and 13, the District
Magistrate, Barabanki vide orders dated
08.12.2009 and 29.12.2009 rejected the
claim of the petitioners. Thereafter, the
petitioners have challenged the order dated
08.12.2009 and 29.12.2009 vide writ
petition No. 7180 (S/S) of 2010 (Mewa Lal
and others Vs. State of U.P. and others)
which was dismissed by this Court vide
judgment and order dated 05.1.2012.

Aggrieved by the order dated
05.01.2012,
petitioners
filed
Special
Appeal No. 522 of 2012 (Mewa Lal and
others Vs. State of U.P. and others) which
was allowed by a Division Bench of this
Court vide judgment and order dated
02.05.2016 setting aside the judgment and
order dated 05.01.2012 passed by learned
Single Judge in writ petition No. 7180 of
2010. The Division Bench in Special
Appeal further directed the respondents to
consider the case of the petitioners in the
light of the judgment and order dated
26.02.2013 passed in Special Appeal No.
110 of 2013.

It is contended by learned counsel
for the petitioners that even after the
judgment in the Special Appeal, the
respondents did not comply the order
passed in Special Appeal No. 522 of 2012
hence, the present contempt petition has
been filed.

4. The District Magistrate, Barabanki
has filed an affidavit, inter alia stating that
the judgment and order passed by the
Division Bench in Special Appeal No. 522
of 2012 dated 02.05.2016 has been
1018 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
complied with and there is no willful
defiance of the judgment passed by the
Division Bench of this Court.

It is submitted on behalf of the
respondents that vide Government Order
dated 21.08.2007, scheme for temporary
employees of census Department for the
year 1991 and 2000-01 was formulated.
Initially the scheme framed by the
Government Order dated 21.08.2007 was
for three years from the date of issuance of
the Government Order which provided that
no preference will be given in the matter of
recruitment to the Census employees. A
clarification was issued vide consequential
Government Order dated 09.10.2007.

Subsequently, in compliance of
the orders passed by this Court, in the case
of the petitioners, the Government Order
was issued on 23.08.2017 in which
condition
no.
4
mentioned
in
the
Government order dated 21.08.2007 which
provides that scheme will be only for three
years from the date of issuance of State
Government Order was relaxed for the
petitioners.
Thereafter,
the
Principal
Secretary,
General
Administration
conveyed
a
meeting
of
the
census
employees of different Departments to
ensure the compliance of the order passed
by this Court. The minutes of meeting
dated 14.02.2019 circulated on 18.02.2019
are annexed along with affidavit of the
District Magistrate, Barabanki.

Thereafter,
pursuant
to
the
decision taken by the State Government,
consequential order dated 23.02.2019 was
passed by the District Magistrate whereby
cases
of
the
writ
petitioners
were
considered and appointment was offered to
the eight writ petitioners. Consequently,
appointment orders were issued to eight
writ petitions on 23.02.2019. The copies of
the appointment orders have been filed
along with affidavit.

5. This Court vide order dated
12.03.2019 required the contemnor(s) to
file fresh affidavit for taking conscious
decision in respect of petitioner no. 2.
Thereafter, the case of the petitioner no. 2
Raj Kumar was considered vide order dated
23.03.2019 by the District Magistrate,
Barabanki and consequential appointment
orders were issued by the Sub Divisional
Magistrate, on 25.03.2019. Thereafter on
30.08.2019 the contempt court directed the
respondents to offer lump sum amount to
the persons who have attained the age of
superannuation
and
could
not
be
accommodated.

To make compliance of the order
dated 30.08.2019, the District Magistrate,
Barabanki vide his letter dated 13.09.2019
referred
the
matter
to
the
State
Government. The State Government after
examining the matter sent the instructions
to the District Magistrate Varanasi vide its
letter dated 17.09.2019 that under the
scheme, the eligible persons have been
accommodated/appointed after extending
the benefit of relaxation. It is further stated
in the letter dated 17.9.2019 that under the
scheme, there is no provision for providing
lump sum amount to anybody nor there is
any amount proposed in the budget, in this
regard.

Learned counsel for respondents
submitted that as per the scheme dated
21.08.2007,
the
relaxation
mentioned
therein was applicable only to the date of
notification of vacancies and the census
employees were not entitled for any other
preferences or privileges. He further
submitted that except petitioners 1, 5, 6, 11
and 12, the other petitioners have been
appointed keeping in view the benefit of
3-5 All. Mewalal & Ors. Vs.Sri Rajeev Kumar-II Prin. Secy.(Appointment) Admin. & Ors.
1019
the scheme. The remaining five petitioners
could not be adjusted as they have already
attained the age of superannuation and
since there is no provision in the scheme
for providing lump sum amount to the
retired employees and there is no budget
for the same therefore, the same cannot be
granted to them.

It is further submitted that in the
light of the scheme, the case of the
petitioners has been considered on merit
and the orders dated 02.05.2016 passed in
Special Appeal No. 522 of 2012 have been
complied with, in its letter and spirit.

He has further submitted that
even the appellate court in special appeal
no. 522 of 2012 has not issued any order
for giving lump sum amount to the retired
employees nor there is any provision in the
scheme and therefore, the five writ
petitioners (since retired) are not entitled to
the said benefit.

It is contended on behalf of the
respondents that the order dated 30.8.2019
passed by the Contempt Court directing the
authorities to offer lump sum amount to the
persons who had attained the age of
superannuation is beyond the four corners
of the order dated 2.5.2016 passed in
Special Appeal No.522 of 2012, which is
alleged to have been violated and therefore
was beyond the jurisdiction of the contempt
court. Relevant portion (paras 2 and 3) of
the order dated 30.8.2019 passed by the
Contempt court reads as under :

"1...............

2. The matter remained pending with
the concerned authorities around ten years. In
the meantime, some of the petitioners attained
the age of superannuation. However, a decision
has been taken to accommodate those, who
have not attained the age of superannuation
pursuant to the judgment and order in question.

3. Since the petitioners cannot he
held at fault for delayed decision by the
authority concerned, it would be appropriate to
offer lump-sum amount to the persons, who
have attained the age of superannuation and
could not be accommodated.

4..............

5.............."

6. Submission of learned counsel for
respondents in context of offering lump sum
amount to the persons retired, which is beyond
the scope of order dated 2.5.2016, appears to be
correct. The operative part of the order dated
2.5.2016 passed in Special Appeal No.522 of
2012 reads as under :

"Accordingly, the special appeal is
allowed and the order dated 05.01.2012 passed
by the learned Single Judge is set aside. The
respondents are directed to consider the case of
the appellants in the light of the judgment and
order dated 26.02.2013 passed in Special
Appeal No.110 of 2013. "

7. A perusal of the aforesaid order
dated 2.5.2016 depicts that the Division
Bench has only directed the respondents to
consider the case of the appellants in the
light
of
judgment
and
order
dated
26.2.2013 passed in Special Appeal No.110
of 2013 wherein the State Government was
directed to consider the case of the private
respondents on merit in the light of Scheme
as well as the Government Orders issued
towards the compliance of the judgment of
the Apex Court as well as the judgment
passed by learned Single Judge. The
relevant portion of the order dated
26.2.2013 passed in Special Appeal No.110
of 2013 is reproduced as under :

"In that view of the matter when
the majority of learned Single Judges have
passed the judgments/orders in line with
the Supreme Court's judgments, as above,
the retrenched census employees can be
1020 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
absorbed only under the scheme framed by
the
State
Government.
Hence,
the
impugned judgment is modified to read that
the State Government shall consider the
cases
of
private
respondents
(writ
petitioners) herein on merit and in the light
of the scheme as well as Government
orders issued towards the compliance of
the judgments of Hon'ble the Apex Court as
well as the judgments passed by learned
Single Judges in line therewith.

This Special Appeal, thus, stands
allowed to that extent. "

8. Perusal of the order dated 2.5.2016
passed in special appeal No.522 of 2012
(supra) as well as the order dated 26.2.2013
passed in Special appeal No.110 of 2013
reveals that in the special appeals, no
direction was given to respondents to offer
lump sum amount to the persons who has
attained the age of superannuation and
could not be accommodated.

9. Learned counsel for respondents
has
further
submitted
that
since
in
compliance of the judgment and order
dated 2.5.2016, the respondents have
considered the case of the petitioners and
have given appointments to petitioners 2, 3,
4, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 13 and since the
petitioners 1, 5, 6, 11 and 12 had retired,
therefore, as per rules, they could not have
been accommodated/appointed. He further
submitted that as per instructions of the
State Government, under the Scheme, there
is no provision for providing lump sum
amount to anybody, nor any such amount is
proposed in the budget.

Learned
counsel
for
the
respondents has relied on the judgment in
(1996) 10 SCC 102 V. Kanakrajan Vs.
General
Manager
South
Eastern
Railway and others wherein it has been
held that the order of the High Court
directing the authorities to consider the
question of the appellant's promotion and
the
authorities
refusing
to
entertain
appellant's
application
for
contempt
whereby refusing to promote on the ground
of unsuitability as per rules was upheld.

Learned
counsel
for
the
respondents has further relied on the
judgment reported in (1996) 6 SCC 291
J.S. Parihar Vs. Ganpat Duggar and
others wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has held that once there is an order passed
by the Government on the basis of the
directions issued by the Court, there arises
a fresh cause of action to seek redressal in
an appropriate forum and this cannot be
considered to be willful violation of the
order.

10. Relevant para 6 of the judgment is
reproduced as under :

"6. The question then is whether
the Division Bench was right in setting
aside the direction issued by the learned
Single Judge to redraw the seniority list. It
is contended by Mr. S.K. Jain, the learned
Counsel appearing for the Appellant, that
unless the learned Judge goes into the
correctness of the decision taken by the
Government in preparation of the seniority
list in the light of the law laid down by
three Benches, the learned Judge cannot
come to a conclusion whether or not the
Respondent had willfully or deliberately
disobeyed the orders of the Court as
defined Under Section 2(b) of the Act.
Therefore, the learned Single Judge of the
High Court necessarily has to go into the
merits of that question. We do not find that
the contention is well founded. It is seen
that, admittedly, the Respondents had
prepared the seniority list on 2-7-1991.
Subsequently promotions came to be made.
3-5 All. Mewalal & Ors. Vs.Sri Rajeev Kumar-II Prin. Secy.(Appointment) Admin. & Ors.
1021
The question is whether seniority list is open to
review in the contempt proceedings to find out
whether it is in conformity with the directions
issued by the earlier Benches. It is seen that
once there is an order passed by the
Government on the basis of the directions
issued by the court, there arises a fresh cause of
action to seek redressal in an appropriate
forum. The preparation of the seniority list may
be wrong or may be right or may or may not be
in conformity with the directions. But that
would be a fresh cause of action for the
aggrieved party to avail of the opportunity of
judicial review. But that cannot be considered
to be the wilful violation of the order. After reexercising the judicial review in contempt
proceedings, a fresh direction by the learned
Single Judge cannot be given to redraw the
seniority list. In other words, the learned Judge
was exercising the jurisdiction to consider the
matter on merits in the contempt proceedings. It
would not be permissible Under Section 12 of
the Act. Therefore, the Division Bench has
exercised the power Under Section 18 of the
Rajasthan High Court Ordinance being a
judgment or order of the Single Judge; the
Division
Bench
corrected
the
mistake
committed by the learned Single Judge.
Therefore, it may not be necessary for the State
to file an appeal in this Court against the
judgment of the learned Single Judge when the
matter was already seized of the Division
Bench."

11. Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2014)3
SCC 373 Sudhir Vasudeva Chairman and
Managing Director, Oil and Natural Gas
Corporation Limited and others versus M.
George Ravishekaran and others has held in
para 19 as under :

"The power vested in the High
Courts as well as this Court to punish for
contempt is a special and rare power available
both under the Constitution as well as the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It is a drastic
power which, if misdirected, could even curb
the liberty of the individual charged with
commission of contempt. The very nature of the
power casts a sacred duty in the Courts to
exercise the same with the greatest of care and
caution. This is also necessary as, more often
than not, adjudication of a contempt plea
involves a process of self-determination of the
sweep, meaning and effect of the order in
respect of which disobedience is alleged. The
Courts must not, therefore, travel beyond the
four corners of the order which is alleged to
have been flouted or enter into questions that
have not been dealt with or decided in the
judgment or the order violation of which is
alleged. Only such directions which are explicit
in a judgment or order or are plainly self -
evident ought to be taken into account for the
purpose of consideration as to whether there
has been any disobedience or willful violation
of the same. Decided issues cannot be
reopened; nor can the plea of equities be
considered. The Courts must also ensure that
while considering a contempt plea the power
available to the Court in other corrective
jurisdictions like review or appeal is not
trenched upon. No order or direction
supplemental to what has been already
expressed should be issued by the Court while
exercising jurisdiction in the domain of the
contempt law; such an exercise is more
appropriate, in other jurisdictions vested in the
Court, as noticed above."

12. In view of the above, the law in this
regard is settled and once there is an order
passed by the government on the basis of the
directions issued by the Court, a fresh cause of
action has arisen for the aggrieved party to avail
the appropriate judicial remedy and this cannot
be said to be a wilful disobedience of the order
and no fresh direction can be given while
exercising the power of judicial review in
contempt proceedings afresh.
1022 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

13. In the case in hand, since no
direction was issued vide judgment and
order dated 2.5.2016 passed in Special
Appeal No.522 of 2012 nor any direction
was issued in special Appeal No.110 of
2013, therefore, in view of the law laid
down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sudhir
Vasudeva's case (supra), this court being
the Court of contempt cannot travel beyond
what has been ordered by the writ
Court/special appellate court and therefore,
I am not inclined to proceed against the
contemners for alleged non-compliance of
order dated 30.8.2019 passed by the
contempt court.

14. Having considered submission of
learned counsel for respondents and after going
through the judgments of V. Kanakarajan's case
(supra) and J.S. Parihar's case (supra) and after
taking note of the fact that in compliance of the
judgment and order dated 2.5.2016 and order
dated
7.9.2019
passed
by
the
State
Government, appointments to petitioners 2, 3,
4, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 13 have been given and the
petitioners 1, 5, 6, 11 and 12 could not be
appointed as per rules as they had already
retired, I am of the opinion that the order passed
by the District Magistrate declining to consider
the case of the petitioners 1, 5, 6, 11 and 12
gives rise to fresh cause of action to the said
petitioners for which they can avail the
appropriate remedy as advised.

15. No case for wilful and deliberate
disobedience has been made out. I am of the
opinion that sufficient compliance has been
made by the respondents and by no stretch, it
can be considered to be a deliberate and wilful
violation of the judgment and order dated
2.5.2016.

16. The contempt petition fails and is
accordingly dismissed.
----------
(2020)03-05ILR A1022
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.01.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJENDRA KUMAR-IV, J.

Criminal Revision No. 70 of 2018

Lallan Babu & Anr. ...Revisionists
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionists:
Sri Pramod Kumar

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.

A. Criminal law- Protection of children
from Sexual Offence Act,2012-Section 3⁄4-
Code of Criminal Procedure,1973-Section
397/401
&
Indian
Penal
Code,1860Sections 363,366,376 & - application-
Section 319- challenge to-summoning of
proposed accused for trial u/s 319 Cr.P.C.-
examination-in-chief is sufficient if it
satisfactorily proves the presence and role
of
accused in
the
crime-complainant
himself got examined on oath as PW-1
and victim as PW-2 statement is in
support of contents of the FIR-revisionists
actively participated in the commission of
crime by provoking the victim to go with
the accused-mere taking name is not
sufficient there must be something more
to show implication of person-on mere
probability of complicity revisionists have
not
been
summoned
but
there
is
appropriate material and evidence to
justify summons of revisionists-trial judge
has committed no error of law to summon
the revisionists for trial.(Para 5 to 17)

B. Accused subsequently impleaded is to
be treated as if he had been an accused
when the court initially took cognizance of
the offence-degree of satisfaction of Court
for summoning the accused ,the test are