Abhishek Prabhakar Awasthi vs Girija Subramanian Chairman / M.D., Head Office New

In Person Asit Srivastava HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J. Heard Sri Abhishek Prabhakar Awasthi, the petitioner (in person) and Sri Asit Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents. The present contempt application has been preferred for alleged non compliance of judgment and order dated 23.04.2025. The relevant extract of the same is quoted hereinbelow:- "10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, I am of the considered opinion that if the petitioner has been paid the amount of gratuity, he should have been paid the entire amount of gratuity and the amount in the impugned recovery to the tune of Rs. 1,70,452/- in the name of 'financial loss caused to the company' without giving any show cause notice to that effect is improper and impermissible, therefore, the recovery to the tune of Rs.1,70,452/- is hereby set-aside/quashed. However, if the competent authority of the company is willing to execute the aforesaid recovery, a proper show cause notice indicating complete details should be given to the petitioner within a period of 15 days from today and the petitioner may submit his explanation/reply within a further period of 15 days. Thereafter, the final decision on such amount of recovery may be taken by affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a further period of one month. All the aforesaid exercises should be undertaken within the time stipulated in this order, failing which the amount to the tune of Rs. 1,70,452/-, which has been recovered from the petitioner shall be returned to him within a further period of 15 days with interest at the rate of 6% from the date the amount of gratuity has been paid to him, i.e., 22.11.2019 till the date of it?s actual payment. It is also directed that if the admissible dues have not been paid to the petitioner within aforesaid stipulated time, the petitioner may claim interest thereon, on the delayed payment, and that request of the petitioner may be considered strictly in accordance with law within a period of two months. " The applicant is appearing in person and has submitted that he is confining his submission to the extent for the purposes of initiating the contempt proceedings against the respondents i.e. with regard to the part of the judgment whereby a direction was issued to the respondents to issue a proper show cause notice within a period of fifteen days from today to the petitioner who will submit his reply within fifteen days and thereafter after providing opportunity of hearing, the order may be passed within a period of one month and failing which the amount to the tune of Rs. 1,70,452/- which was 2 CAPL No. 1804 of 2025 recovered from the petitioner shall be returned to him within a further period of fifteen days with interest @ 6 per cent. It is further submitted that the notice was never ever served upon the applicant. The notice for the first time was issued on 09.05.2025 i.e. after expiry of fifteen days period, which was already expired on 07.05.2025. The applicant moved a representation on 17.05.2025 for payment of the sum of Rs. 1,70,452/- which was not given to the applicant, hence the respondents have intentionally disobeyed the judgment and order passed by the writ Court. It is further submitted that the applicant somehow came to know internally from the Office that a vacant envelop is going to be posted at his address in which there would not be any notice and that is reason, he had not accepted the same and secondly, it was not issued by the competent authority. The competent authority is Chief Manager, Mumbai, so the applicant is not suppose to accept the notice issued by the incompetent authority. On the other hand, Sri Asit Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that notice was sent to the applicant by registered post on 09.05.2025 and as per the track report dated 14.05.2025 wherein it has been endorsed that the addressee could not be located. On 15.05.2025, again the postal department sent the person for the service of the post and there was an endorsement that the addressee left without instruction and immediately, an application was moved on 17/18.05.2025 before this Court for extension of time in which the order has been passed on 20.05.2025 by making an observation that prima facie, it appears that the applicants have taken steps well within time. When the applicant did not accept the notice and had not submit his reply then as per the records available, order has been passed on 23.06.2025 against the applicant and in pursuance thereof, there was no occasion for payment of sum of Rs. 1,70,452/-, as recovered from the applicant. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, it is found that the notice was sent and the postal department tried to serve upon the applicant twice and as per the admitted case of the applicant that he was informed internally by the Kanpur Office that a vacant envelop is going to be served, he had avoided to receive the notice, meaning hereby, it is the applicant, who had intentionally not accepted the notice merely on the basis of some information received from some employee of Kanpur Office. The respondents/department immediately moved an application for extension of time in the writ petition and they were under impression that there is a delay of only one day which could be fatal in the matter and the writ Court on 20.05.2025 passed an order and disposed of the application, which is quoted hereinbelow:- "In Re:- C.M.A. No. 15 of 2025 Heard learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Asit Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite parties. 3 CAPL No. 1804 of 2025 Prima facie, it appears that the applicants have taken steps will in time in terms of the order dated 23.04.2025. Recital to this effect has been given in paragraph 7 of the writ petition, therefore, there is no need to grant extension of time. Further, the remaining period for making compliance of the order of this Court is still available with the opposite parties, therefore, the competent authority may conclude the proceedings in terms of paragraph 10 of the judgement and order dated 23.04.2025. The application is disposed of. " From perusal of the order, it is clear that the writ Court has observed "Prima facie, it appears that the applicants have taken steps well in time in terms of the order dated 23.04.2025". In view of the facts and discussion made hereinabove, no case is made out against the respondent for defiance of judgment and order passed in the writ petition as such the present contempt application is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. October 30, 2025 Nitesh (Manish Kumar,J.) NITESH KUMAR TEWARY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

In Person Asit Srivastava HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J. Heard Sri Abhishek Prabhakar Awasthi, the petitioner (in person) and Sri Asit Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents. The present contempt application has been preferred for alleged non compliance of judgment and order dated 23.04.2025. The relevant extract of the same is quoted hereinbelow:- "10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, I am of the considered opinion that if the petitioner has been paid the amount of gratuity, he should have been paid the entire amount of gratuity and the amount in the impugned recovery to the tune of Rs. 1,70,452/- in the name of 'financial loss caused to the company' without giving any show cause notice to that effect is improper and impermissible, therefore, the recovery to the tune of Rs.1,70,452/- is hereby set-aside/quashed. However, if the competent authority of the company is willing to execute the aforesaid recovery, a proper show cause notice indicating complete details should be given to the petitioner within a period of 15 days from today and the petitioner may submit his explanation/reply within a further period of 15 days. Thereafter, the final decision on such amount of recovery may be taken by affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a further period of one month. All the aforesaid exercises should be undertaken within the time stipulated in this order, failing which the amount to the tune of Rs. 1,70,452/-, which has been recovered from the petitioner shall be returned to him within a further period of 15 days with interest at the rate of 6% from the date the amount of gratuity has been paid to him, i.e., 22.11.2019 till the date of it?s actual payment. It is also directed that if the admissible dues have not been paid to the petitioner within aforesaid stipulated time, the petitioner may claim interest thereon, on the delayed payment, and that request of the petitioner may be considered strictly in accordance with law within a period of two months. " The applicant is appearing in person and has submitted that he is confining his submission to the extent for the purposes of initiating the contempt proceedings against the respondents i.e. with regard to the part of the judgment whereby a direction was issued to the respondents to issue a proper show cause notice within a period of fifteen days from today to the petitioner who will submit his reply within fifteen days and thereafter after providing opportunity of hearing, the order may be passed within a period of one month and failing which the amount to the tune of Rs. 1,70,452/- which was 2 CAPL No. 1804 of 2025 recovered from the petitioner shall be returned to him within a further period of fifteen days with interest @ 6 per cent. It is further submitted that the notice was never ever served upon the applicant. The notice for the first time was issued on 09.05.2025 i.e. after expiry of fifteen days period, which was already expired on 07.05.2025. The applicant moved a representation on 17.05.2025 for payment of the sum of Rs. 1,70,452/- which was not given to the applicant, hence the respondents have intentionally disobeyed the judgment and order passed by the writ Court. It is further submitted that the applicant somehow came to know internally from the Office that a vacant envelop is going to be posted at his address in which there would not be any notice and that is reason, he had not accepted the same and secondly, it was not issued by the competent authority. The competent authority is Chief Manager, Mumbai, so the applicant is not suppose to accept the notice issued by the incompetent authority. On the other hand, Sri Asit Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that notice was sent to the applicant by registered post on 09.05.2025 and as per the track report dated 14.05.2025 wherein it has been endorsed that the addressee could not be located. On 15.05.2025, again the postal department sent the person for the service of the post and there was an endorsement that the addressee left without instruction and immediately, an application was moved on 17/18.05.2025 before this Court for extension of time in which the order has been passed on 20.05.2025 by making an observation that prima facie, it appears that the applicants have taken steps well within time. When the applicant did not accept the notice and had not submit his reply then as per the records available, order has been passed on 23.06.2025 against the applicant and in pursuance thereof, there was no occasion for payment of sum of Rs. 1,70,452/-, as recovered from the applicant. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, it is found that the notice was sent and the postal department tried to serve upon the applicant twice and as per the admitted case of the applicant that he was informed internally by the Kanpur Office that a vacant envelop is going to be served, he had avoided to receive the notice, meaning hereby, it is the applicant, who had intentionally not accepted the notice merely on the basis of some information received from some employee of Kanpur Office. The respondents/department immediately moved an application for extension of time in the writ petition and they were under impression that there is a delay of only one day which could be fatal in the matter and the writ Court on 20.05.2025 passed an order and disposed of the application, which is quoted hereinbelow:- "In Re:- C.M.A. No. 15 of 2025 Heard learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Asit Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite parties. 3 CAPL No. 1804 of 2025 Prima facie, it appears that the applicants have taken steps will in time in terms of the order dated 23.04.2025. Recital to this effect has been given in paragraph 7 of the writ petition, therefore, there is no need to grant extension of time. Further, the remaining period for making compliance of the order of this Court is still available with the opposite parties, therefore, the competent authority may conclude the proceedings in terms of paragraph 10 of the judgement and order dated 23.04.2025. The application is disposed of. " From perusal of the order, it is clear that the writ Court has observed "Prima facie, it appears that the applicants have taken steps well in time in terms of the order dated 23.04.2025". In view of the facts and discussion made hereinabove, no case is made out against the respondent for defiance of judgment and order passed in the writ petition as such the present contempt application is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. October 30, 2025 Nitesh (Manish Kumar,J.) NITESH KUMAR TEWARY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench