High Court

Applicant :- Umesh Chand Garg Opposite Party :- Smt. Sarita Tiwari, Director, State Council For Education Research And Training And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Alok Kumar Gupta Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant. Vide order dated 21.02.2023 passed in Writ A No. 3248 of 2023 filed by the applicant, the writ Court directed as under: "The prayer in the writ petition is for a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents herein to pay remaining stipend to the petitioner i.e., Rs. 20,000 with interest. The case of the writ petitioner is that he was selected for training for Vishista Basic Teacher Training Course 2004 and his training commenced from first day of August, 2004 and the examination was held on 16.08.2005. It is the case of the writ petitioner that after conclusion of the examination results were declared on 14th September, 2005 and he was granted appointment letter on 28.12.2005 for the post of Assistant Teacher in Primary School. According to the writ petitioner, the State Government in its own wisdom has issued a Government Order dated 14.01.2004 addressed to various educational authorities providing for payment of stipend as stipulated in clause 3.12 of the Government Order itself. In para 5 of the writ petition it has been further pleaded that the petitioner was paid stipend in two installments, the first installment for six months i.e., from August 2004 to January, 2005 and the second installment for three months i.e., February, 2005 to April, 2005. It is the case of the writ petitioner that the petitioner was granted stipend for nine months i.e., from August 2004 to April, 2005 but he was denied payment of stipend for eight months. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has further argued that once there exists a Government Order dated 14.01.2004 then the respondents being the authorities of the State are bound by it. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has also relied upon a decision in Writ A No. 16748 of 2022 (Kanaklata Yadav and 459 others Vs. State of U.P. and others) decided on 17.10.2012 so as to buttress his submission that even in fact the Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal Defective No. 321 of 2015 (State of U.P. Vs. Dhirendra Pratap Singh) decided on 27.04.2015 as well as in the case in Special Appeal Defective No. 532 of 2018 (Vandana Singh and 17 others Vs. State of U.P. and 4 others) decided on 18.02.2020 have given judicial shield for granting stipend. It has been contended that the matter had travelled to Apex Court and the challenge was rendered in negative. Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, had submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to be paid stipend as according to him there are certain corringendum issued which even in fact are clarificatory in nature whereby the provision of paying stipend has been dispensed with. However, according to him, the matter can be addressed at the first instance by the respondent No. 4, Pracharya District Institute of Education Training, Agra. According to learned Standing Counsel, the petitioner may represent his case raising all legal and factual issues before the respondent No. 4 who shall address the same. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Since a statement has been made at bar by the parties that the matter is to be decided at the first instance by the respondent No. 4, Pracharya District Institute of Education Training, Agra, thus it would be in fitness of matter that the writ petitioner who represented his cause before the respondent No. 4 accompanied with a detailed representation enclosing therewith the judgment of Kanaklata Yadav and another (supra) in which the writ petitioner seeks to rely upon the respondent No. 4 on the receipt of the same thereafter shall proceed to decide the matter in the light of the Government Order dated 14.01.2004 and also any corringendum or clarifications which are in vogue. The respondent No. 4 shall pass a speaking and reasoned order giving details and references of the Government Orders existing on hand and their applicability either to assign benefit or deny benefit. The entire exercise should be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of production of the certified copy of the Order." Learned counsel for the applicant submits that a certified copy of the aforesaid order was submitted for compliance before the opposite party, but the opposite party has willfully not complied with the order and, thus, has committed civil contempt liable for punishment under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Prima facie, a case of contempt has been made out for punishing the opposite party for willful disobedience of the writ Court order. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, one more opportunity is accorded to the opposite party to comply with the aforesaid order of the writ Court in its letter and spirit within three months from the date of production of a copy of this order. The applicant shall supply a duly stamped registered envelope addressed to the opposite party and another self-addressed stamped envelope to the office within one week from today. The office shall send a copy of this order along with the self- addressed envelope of the applicant with a copy of contempt application to the opposite party within one week thereafter and keep a record thereof. The opposite party shall comply with the directions of the writ Court and intimate the applicant(s) of the order through the self-addressed envelop within a week thereafter. With the aforesaid observations, this application is disposed of at this stage with liberty to the applicant to move a fresh application, if the order is not complied with by the opposite party within the stipulated time as aforementioned. Order Date :- 17.4.2025 Pravesh Mishra

Applicant :- Umesh Chand Garg Opposite Party :- Smt. Sarita Tiwari, Director, State Council For Education Research And Training And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Alok Kumar Gupta Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant. Vide order dated 21.02.2023 passed in Writ A No. 3248 of 2023 filed by the applicant, the writ Court directed as under: "The prayer in the writ petition is for a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents herein to pay remaining stipend to the petitioner i.e., Rs. 20,000 with interest. The case of the writ petitioner is that he was selected for training for Vishista Basic Teacher Training Course 2004 and his training commenced from first day of August, 2004 and the examination was held on 16.08.2005. It is the case of the writ petitioner that after conclusion of the examination results were declared on 14th September, 2005 and he was granted appointment letter on 28.12.2005 for the post of Assistant Teacher in Primary School. According to the writ petitioner, the State Government in its own wisdom has issued a Government Order dated 14.01.2004 addressed to various educational authorities providing for payment of stipend as stipulated in clause 3.12 of the Government Order itself. In para 5 of the writ petition it has been further pleaded that the petitioner was paid stipend in two installments, the first installment for six months i.e., from August 2004 to January, 2005 and the second installment for three months i.e., February, 2005 to April, 2005. It is the case of the writ petitioner that the petitioner was granted stipend for nine months i.e., from August 2004 to April, 2005 but he was denied payment of stipend for eight months. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has further argued that once there exists a Government Order dated 14.01.2004 then the respondents being the authorities of the State are bound by it. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has also relied upon a decision in Writ A No. 16748 of 2022 (Kanaklata Yadav and 459 others Vs. State of U.P. and others) decided on 17.10.2012 so as to buttress his submission that even in fact the Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal Defective No. 321 of 2015 (State of U.P. Vs. Dhirendra Pratap Singh) decided on 27.04.2015 as well as in the case in Special Appeal Defective No. 532 of 2018 (Vandana Singh and 17 others Vs. State of U.P. and 4 others) decided on 18.02.2020 have given judicial shield for granting stipend. It has been contended that the matter had travelled to Apex Court and the challenge was rendered in negative. Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, had submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to be paid stipend as according to him there are certain corringendum issued which even in fact are clarificatory in nature whereby the provision of paying stipend has been dispensed with. However, according to him, the matter can be addressed at the first instance by the respondent No. 4, Pracharya District Institute of Education Training, Agra. According to learned Standing Counsel, the petitioner may represent his case raising all legal and factual issues before the respondent No. 4 who shall address the same. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Since a statement has been made at bar by the parties that the matter is to be decided at the first instance by the respondent No. 4, Pracharya District Institute of Education Training, Agra, thus it would be in fitness of matter that the writ petitioner who represented his cause before the respondent No. 4 accompanied with a detailed representation enclosing therewith the judgment of Kanaklata Yadav and another (supra) in which the writ petitioner seeks to rely upon the respondent No. 4 on the receipt of the same thereafter shall proceed to decide the matter in the light of the Government Order dated 14.01.2004 and also any corringendum or clarifications which are in vogue. The respondent No. 4 shall pass a speaking and reasoned order giving details and references of the Government Orders existing on hand and their applicability either to assign benefit or deny benefit. The entire exercise should be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of production of the certified copy of the Order." Learned counsel for the applicant submits that a certified copy of the aforesaid order was submitted for compliance before the opposite party, but the opposite party has willfully not complied with the order and, thus, has committed civil contempt liable for punishment under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Prima facie, a case of contempt has been made out for punishing the opposite party for willful disobedience of the writ Court order. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, one more opportunity is accorded to the opposite party to comply with the aforesaid order of the writ Court in its letter and spirit within three months from the date of production of a copy of this order. The applicant shall supply a duly stamped registered envelope addressed to the opposite party and another self-addressed stamped envelope to the office within one week from today. The office shall send a copy of this order along with the self- addressed envelope of the applicant with a copy of contempt application to the opposite party within one week thereafter and keep a record thereof. The opposite party shall comply with the directions of the writ Court and intimate the applicant(s) of the order through the self-addressed envelop within a week thereafter. With the aforesaid observations, this application is disposed of at this stage with liberty to the applicant to move a fresh application, if the order is not complied with by the opposite party within the stipulated time as aforementioned. Order Date :- 17.4.2025 Pravesh Mishra