Civil Appeal Nos. 605, 606, 607 and 608 of 2013 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C.) No. 24200 of 2012) and SLP (C) Nos. 24459, 24461 and 25292 of 2012. Case: 1. Rajiv Kapoor and Anr., 2. Manoj Kumar Singh and Anr. Vs 1. Karan Pal Singh, 2. Rajendra Singh. Supreme Court (India)
| Case Number | Civil Appeal Nos. 605, 606, 607 and 608 of 2013 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C.) No. 24200 of 2012) and SLP (C) Nos. 24459, 24461 and 25292 of 2012 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv., M.R. Shamshad, Shashank, Ajay Singh and Rakesh Uttamchandra Upadhyay, Advs. and For Respondents: Dinesh Dwivedi, Sr. Adv., Preetika Dwivedi, Garvesh Kabra, Yatish Mohan, Advs. for E.C. Vidya Sagar, Adv. |
| Judges | H.L. Dattu and Ranjan Gogoi, JJ. |
| Issue | Contempt of Court Act |
| Citation | 2013 (2) SLJ 4 (SC) |
| Judgement Date | January 21, 2013 |
| Court | Supreme Court (India) |
Order:
-
Leave granted.
-
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Contempt Petition No. 1239 of 2012 dated 10.07.2012.
-
The order passed by the High Court reads as under:
After hearing both the parties, I agree with the submissions made by Sri J.N. Mathur, learned Senior Advocate that the said order is prospective in nature. But fact remains that the judicial order is in favour of the Petitioner i.e. the retirement will be subject to outcome of the pending proposal before the State Government. When, it is so, then the Petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of the Government Order dated 03.07.2012 by virtue of the order dated 30.01.2012, passed by this Court, in Writ Petition No. 50(S/B) of 2012. Now the opposite parties have no option except to implement the order dated 30.01.2012, passed by the writ court. In view of above, the Petitioner is directed to join his duties within a period of one week and the opposite party No. 2, i.e. Director, U.P. Rajya Beej Pramanikaran Sanstha, Rajkiya Udyan Parisar, Kariyappa Marg, Alambagh, Lucknow shall allow him to resume his duties and the services of the Petitioner will be counted for all purposes. The period of absence of the Petitioner shall be treated as per Leave Rules of the Government applicable in the Organization. With the above observations, the contempt petition is disposed of. Notice for personal appearance is discharged.
-
Aggrieved by the direction so issued by the High Court, as we have already noticed, the Appellants are before us.
-
This Court, while entertaining this appeal, had issued notice to the Respondent and further had stayed the order passed by the High Court in the Contempt Petition. That is how the Appellants have not yet implemented the orders passed by the High Court.
-
We have heard Shri P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel appearing for the Appellants and Shri Dinesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel appearing for the Respondent.
-
The Appellant had filed the aforesaid writ petition, inter alia questioning the intimation issued by the Respondent about his date of retirement. Since the Appellant was to retire on 31.01.2012, the Court, after hearing the parties, had passed the order dated 30.01.2012. The operative portion of the order reads as under:
In view of the aforesaid statement of learned State Counsel, learned Counsel for Petitioner has no objection to this writ petition being disposed of...
To continue reading
Request your trial