The Allahabad High Court has said adopting delaying tactics in complying with the order of the court is unfortunate for the state.
A single-judge bench of Justice Saral Srivastava passed this order while hearing a Contempt Application filed by Alok Kumar.
The Court on 04.03.2022 passed the following order:-
“The applicant has alleged violation of order of Writ Court dated 21.12.2017 passed in Writ-A No 62057 of 2017, whereby the Writ Court had directed the opposite party to consider the claim of applicant for compassionate appointment in accordance with rules as applicable prior to UP Sub Inspector and Inspector (Civil Police) Service Rules, 2015 within a period of two months.
When the order of Writ Court was not complied with, the applicant has preferred the present contempt application in which a compliance affidavit has been filed by Dr Rakesh Shanker, Deputy Inspector General of Police (Establishment) U.P Police Headquarter, Prayagraj stating in paragraph 10 of the affidavit that as soon as the succession certificate is submitted by the applicant, he shall be given appointment.
Counsel for the applicant has filed counter affidavit to the compliance affidavit annexing therewith a letter dated 27.03.2019 issued by Superintendent of Police, Fatehgarh to Superintendent of Police (Establishment), UP Police Headquarter, Prayagraj forwarding a copy of succession certificate.
The applicant alleges that though he is entitled to compassionate appointment which fact has been acknowledged by the opposite party, yet he has not been issued any appointment letter.
In such view of the fact, prima facie a case for contempt is made out.
Accordingly, the opposite party is called upon to appear in person on the next date fixed to show cause as to why charge may not be framed against him for not complying with the order of Writ Court.
In case, the order of Writ Court is complied with by the next date fixed, the opposite party may not appear in person and may file an affidavit of compliance through counsel. List on 04.04.2022.”
The Court noted that,
It is informed by Rakesh Mishra, Standing Counsel, that the opposite party has retired on 31.03.2021 and no officer has been appointed by the State.
The applicant had filed writ petition in 2017 and more than five years have passed yet he is not able to take benefit of judgment of the Court.
It is informed that an affidavit could not be filed in compliance with the order of Writ Court as no officer is appointed on the post and the earlier incumbent has retired on 31.03.2021. The order of the Writ Court has not been complied with in letter and spirit.
The State has not cared to file an affidavit to inform the Court that the opposite party has retired on 31.03.2021.
The Court said it is not expected from the applicant to keep an eye on every moment in the department and as soon as an officer is retired or transferred, and new incumbent joins, he rushes to the Court to file impleadment applications.
The Court further said that, once the notice has been issued, it is obvious that the opposite party who is State has knowledge about the orders of the Court and it is expected from the officers to comply with the orders of the Court in letter and spirit. In such a pitiable condition, it is unfortunate that a poor litigant who is contesting his right before the Court and after succeeding has failed to get the benefit of judgment due to delaying and unscrupulous tactics adopted by the officers.
This results in harassment and waste of valuable time of the litigant in rushing to Court to get the order of the Court executed. The amoral attitude of the authorities in complying with the order of Writ Court also results in wastage of precious time of Court.
In such view of fact, plea of the Standing Counsel that since the opposite party has retired, therefore, no affidavit has been filed nor the order of the Writ Court could be complied with in letter and spirit, the Court finds unable to condone the conduct of opposite party in not filing compliance affidavit and not complying with the order of Writ Court in letter and spirit, and in such view of fact, the Court is compelled to call upon the Director General of Police, UP, Lucknow in the absence of any officer appointed as DIG Establishment to appear in person before the Court so that he may be apprised of the state of affairs of his department and reckless approach of the officers of the department in not complying with the orders of Writ Court on the next date April 21, 2022.
For the reasons recorded in the order and as there is no officer appointed on the post of DIG, Establishment, UP, Prayagraj as informed by the Standing Counsel since the date of retirement of opposite party on 31.03.2021, the Court finds appropriate to permit the applicant to implead Mukul Goel, Director General of Police, UP, Lucknow as opposite party no 2 in array of party.
The Court has fixed the next hearing of the petition on April 21, 2022.
- Aadhar Patel files contempt plea against CBI for barring him to travel even after Courts order on withdrawal of LOC against him
- Supreme Court grants petitioner leave to defend eviction petition filed against him
- Supreme Court flays BSF jawan found drunk on duty, refuses to intervene with proceedings against him
- J&K and Ladakh HC places freedom of liberty at highest pedestal, cancels preventive detention of man