# Rajesh Mishra @ Pappu v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2009) 2 ILRA 470
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2009-03-27
- **Case number:** Crl. Misc. Application No. 218928 of 2008
- **Bench:** Vijay Kumar Verma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rajesh-mishra-pappu-v-state-of-u-p-41634
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Code
of
Criminal
Procedure-S.-482Practice & Procedure-Law laid down by
Hon'ble Supreme Court-binding upon all
2 All] Rajesh Mishra alias Pappu V. State of U.P.
471
subordinate Courts including State of
U.P.-once the application disposed of
with direction to follow the direction of
Amarawati case-No further direction
required.

Held: Para 5

In view of these directions also, all the
subordinate courts in Uttar Pradesh are
under obligation to follow the law laid
down in Smt. Amrawati case (supra). The
direction issued by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in afore-cited decision, must also
be followed in letter and spirit by all the
subordinate courts in Uttar Pradesh.
Case law discussed:
2004 (50) ACC 742, Criminal Appeal No. 538
of 2009 (arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 7021
of 2007)

## Text

470 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009
appreciation of the full facts should not be
disturbed.

12. Reliance placed upon Division
Bench judgment of this Court in the case
of State Bank of India Vs. Ram Piyarey
Adult (supra) by the learned counsel for
the petitioner is totally misdirected as the
said case is clearly distinguishable on
facts.
The
Division
Bench
while
upholding that the Government or the
public authority concerned has to examine
the financial condition of the family of the
deceased and it is only if satisfied that but
for the provisions of employment the
family will not be able to meet the crisis
that a job is to be offered to the eligible
member of the family, but on the facts of
the said case, since it was found that
income of the petitioner was not sufficient
to maintain, as such, the order refusing
the appointment on compassionate ground
was held to be unjustified and the
employer was directed to reconsider the
case and to take appropriate decision
considering the financial stringency and
hardship.

The
case
being
clearly
distinguishable on facts has no application
whatsoever.

13. In view of the fact that the
family of the deceased has been paid a
sum of Rs.3.12 lacs towards terminal
benefit and the widow is entitled to family
pension amounting to Rs.2875/- per
month and the family has immovable
assets valued at Rs.1.25 lacs and three
elder daughters being married, there being
only two members in the family, the
financial condition of the family by no
stretch of imagination can be said to be
penury nor that of destitution.

14. The findings recorded by the
competent authority while rejecting the
claim of the petitioner for compassionate
appointment are in accordance with the
parameters laid down by the scheme
framed by the Bank, inasmuch as all the
factors required to be considered while
arriving at a conclusion with respect to
the financial condition of the family have
been taken into account nor any such
thing could be pointed out on behalf of
the petitioner which may go to show that
the findings recoreded by the competent
authority are factually incorrect.

15. For the aforesaid reasons, there
is no scope for interference in the
impugned order. The writ petition,
accordingly, fails and stands dismissed.
However, in the facts and circumstances,
there shall be no order as to costs.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.03.2009

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VIJAY KUMAR VERMA, J.

Crl. Misc. Application No. 218928 of 2008
In
Crl. Misc. Application No. 19993 of 2008

Rajesh Mishra @ Pappu.
...Applicant

Versus
State of U.P.

...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Manish Tiwary
Sri Ashwini Kumar Awasthi

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

Code
of
Criminal
Procedure-S.-482Practice & Procedure-Law laid down by
Hon'ble Supreme Court-binding upon all
2 All] Rajesh Mishra alias Pappu V. State of U.P.
471
subordinate Courts including State of
U.P.-once the application disposed of
with direction to follow the direction of
Amarawati case-No further direction
required.

Held: Para 5

In view of these directions also, all the
subordinate courts in Uttar Pradesh are
under obligation to follow the law laid
down in Smt. Amrawati case (supra). The
direction issued by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in afore-cited decision, must also
be followed in letter and spirit by all the
subordinate courts in Uttar Pradesh.
Case law discussed:
2004 (50) ACC 742, Criminal Appeal No. 538
of 2009 (arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 7021
of 2007)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vijay Kumar Verma, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ashwini Kumar
Awasthi Advocate, appearing for the
applicant and learned AGA for the State
on the application dated 09.09.2008,
which has been moved to grant some
short time to enable the applicant to
appear/surrender in the court concerned
and apply for bail in compliance of the
order dated 01.08.2008.

2. From the record, it is revealed that
an application under section 482 Cr.P.C.
was moved in Crl. Misc. Application No.
19993 of 2008 on behalf of the accused
Rajesh Mishra @ Pappu, in which it was
prayed that the courts below be directed
to decide the bail application of the
applicant-accused expeditiously on the
same day in case crime No. 460 of 2008,
under sections 307, 504 IPC, P.S. Cantt,
District
Bareilly.
Application
under
section 482 Cr.P.C. was decided on
01.08.2008 with a direction to the courts
below to hear and dispose of the bail
application of the applicant in aforesaid
case in accordance with the law laid down
by the Seven Judges' Bench of this Court
in the case of Smt. Amrawati and
another vs. State of U.P. 2004 (50) ACC
742. By the same order three weeks' time
was granted for the applicant to surrender
in the court concerned, but he did not
surrender in the court below within that
period. Now the applicant has made
prayer to grant some more time to appear
in the court below and apply for bail in
compliance of the order dated 01.08.2008.

3. In my opinion, there is no need to
grant any further time for the applicant to
surrender in the court below, because
there is no legal bar for the applicant to
surrender in Case Crime No. 460 of P.S.
Cantt, District Bareilly, if he is wanted in
that case. Any person, who is wanted in
any criminal case, can surrender in the
court concerned by moving application
for this purpose at any time and if he is
taken into custody by the court, then he
has right to move the application for bail
and if any bail application is moved, then
the court concerned is bound to decide
that bail application in accordance with
law. Therefore, prayer made in the
application
dated
09.09.2008
is
redundant.

4. It is submitted by the learned
counsel for the applicant that unless a
specific direction is issued by this Court
for deciding the bail application on the
same day or in accordance with the
guidelines laid down by the Seven Judges'
Bench of this Court in Smt. Amrawati
and another vs. State of U.P. 2004 (50)
ACC 742, the subordinate courts in Uttar
Pradesh are not following the law laid
down in that decision and hence, in
present case also, a specific direction be
issued again to the court below to decide
472 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009
the bail application of the applicant in
accordance with law laid down in Smt.
Amrawati case (supra).

5. Having given my thoughtful
consideration to the entire matter, I do not
think that any further specific direction is
required to be issued to the court below to
decide the bail application of the applicant
in accordance with guidelines laid down
by Seven Judges Bench of this Court in
Smt. Amrawati case (supra), because the
law laid down in that decision by this
Court is binding on all the subordinate
courts in Uttar Pradesh. In this context,
reference may be made to Rule 6 of
General
Rules
(Civil)
1957,
which
provides that "All subordinate courts shall
follow the rulings of the High Court
which are in force". Every subordinate
court in Uttar Pradesh is supposed to
follow the law and guidelines laid down
in Smt. Amrawati case (supra) and for
this purpose no separate specific direction
is required to be issued by this Court.
Agreeing with the view of this Court in
Smt. Amrawati case (supra), the Hon'ble
Supreme Court vide order dated 23rd
March 2009 passed in Criminal Appeal
No. 538 of 2009 (arising out of SLP
(Criminal) No. 7021 of 2007) Lal
Kamlendra Pratap Singh vs. State of
U.P.& others has directed all the courts
in Uttar Pradesh to follow the decision of
Smt. Amrawati case (supra)in letter and
spirit. It is also directed by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in afore-cited decision that 'in
appropriate cases interim bail should be
granted pending disposal of the final bail
application, since arrest and detention of a
person can cause irreparable loss to a
person's reputation'. In view of these
directions also, all the subordinate courts
in Uttar Pradesh are under obligation to
follow the law laid down in Smt.
Amrawati case (supra). The direction
issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
afore-cited
decision,
must
also
be
followed in letter and spirit by all the
subordinate courts in Uttar Pradesh.

6. With the observations mentioned
herein-above, the application is disposed
of.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.05.2009

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE TARUN AGARWALA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19454 Of
2007

Class IV Employees Association, High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad and
another

 ...Petitioners

Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Shashi Nandan
Sri Namit Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Zafar Naiyer, Addl. Adv. General
Sri K.R. Sirohi
Sri Yashwant Verma
Sri Rajni Kant Tiwari
Sri J.K. Khanna
Sri M.C. Tripathi
S.C.

Constitution of India, Art. 229 (2)-Pay
Scale-Parity claimed by the Class IV
employees of High Court as per salary
given to Class IV employees working in
Delhi High Court-four judges Committee
recommended for the same pay scale
considering their qualification, nature of
duty etc.-Hon'ble Chief Justice send the
draft of Rules for approval by Hon'ble
Governor
for
financial
grant-matter