High Court · 2025

"1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Asit Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Dharmendra Kumar Dixit, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 to 5 and Sri Amrendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent no.1.

2. The instant contempt application has been filed by the applicants alleging disobedience of the order dated 30.07.2024 passed in Writ-A No. 1618 of 2024.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants were appointed on Class-IVth post since long back and admittedly their services were regularized on 27.12.1993. He further submits that all the benefits were given to the applicants including increment, promotional pay scale etc. and after attaining the age of superannuation, they were retired, but the pension was not being given to them, as a result, they put their grievance before the Raebareli Development Authority and it was informed to them that as they were regularized against temporary post as per the Rules 2011, they are not entitled for pension. It is next submitted that the applicants preferred a writ petition before this Court, i.e., Writ-A No. 1618 of 2024, which was disposed of, after exchange of afÏdavit, on 30.07.2024 with the observation that the applicants were regularized in service on temporary post, which was extended on year to year basis as they were not working against the permanent post. It was also observed therein that Secretary, Department of Housing and Urban Planning, Government of U.P., Lucknow and Vice Chairman, Raebareli Development Authority were directed to take final decision with regard to the issue of permanency of posts, on which, the applicants were engaged; such a decision was to be taken by the authorities within a period of six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of the order; in case the decision is taken for granting permanency to the post on which petitioners are engaged, their grievance regarding confirmation and grant of service benefits in parity with regular employees of the authority shall also be considered and decided within a period of six weeks thereafter. It is also submitted that the order of the writ Court was served on respondent nos.1 and 3, but till today, final decision has not been taken by the respondents on the permanency of post conjointly, therefore, the respondent nos.1 and 3 may be summoned and punished accordingly.

4. Sri Amrendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent no.1 submits that prior to issuance of direction of the writ Court, a request was made by Raebareli Development Authority vide letters dated 14.03.2024 and 15.03.2024 for permanency of the post on which the applicants were working, but the State Government informed the Vice Chairman, Raebareli Development Authority that the retiral benefits can only be given to the employee working on Class-IV post in the Development Authority, those were working against substantive posts.

5. Sri Asit Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel submits that a letter was written to the State Government on 23.09.2024 by respondent no.3 informing permanency is not possible at the stage of the Raebareli Development Authority and again second letter dated 26.12.2024 was also written by respondent no.3 to the State Government requesting necessary instructions, and thereafter, letters were also written on 02.04.2025 and 08.04.2025 regarding decision which has to be taken for permanency of the post and regarding necessary instructions for payment of pension to the applicants, as admittedly they were regularized on year to year basis.

6. It is evident from the record that now, decision and necessary orders are to be passed by the State Government either for permanency of posts on which the applicants are working prior to the date of superannuation or for payment of retiral benefits.

7. List this case on 30.04.2025 at 11:30 A.M.

8. By the next date, respondent no.1 shall file fresh comprehensive afÏdavit of compliance explaining therein that why the order related to the permanency of post has not been passed till today, failing which, he shall appear in person before this Court for the purposes of framing of charge."

4. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, afÏdavit of compliance duly sworn by the respondent no. 1-Mr. P. Guruprasad, Principal Secretary, Department of Housing & Urban Planning, Government of U.P., Lucknow is filed by Shri Amrendra Pratap Singh, learned Standing Counsel, which is taken on record. It is submitted that decision has already been taken in the case of the applicants on 26.04.2025. It is also informed that as the sufÏcient permanent posts were available in Raebareli Development Authority, therefore, permanency of further posts are not needed. Learned Standing Counsel also submits that the Raebareli Development Authority has also written that there is no need for permanency of any post.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants, on the other hand, submits that the decision on the issue of permanency on the post, on which, the applicants were engaged, has not been taken by the respondent in pursuance of the direction of the writ Court. It is also submitted that the retiral benefits are also not being paid to the applicants and, therefore, the respondents may be summoned and punished accordingly.

6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants, learned Standing Counsel and going through the order of writ Court as well as contents of the afÏdavit of compliance along with OfÏce Memo dated

26.04.2025 passed by respondent no. 1, this Court is of the view that no case of contempt is made out.

7. The application, accordingly, stands dismissed.

8. However, it is open to the applicants to take avail appropriate remedy against the decision of the respondents, if they feel so aggrieved. Order Date :- 30.4.2025 VKS VIVEK KUMAR SRIVASTAVA VIVEK KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench

"1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Asit Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Dharmendra Kumar Dixit, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 to 5 and Sri Amrendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent no.1.

2. The instant contempt application has been filed by the applicants alleging disobedience of the order dated 30.07.2024 passed in Writ-A No. 1618 of 2024.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants were appointed on Class-IVth post since long back and admittedly their services were regularized on 27.12.1993. He further submits that all the benefits were given to the applicants including increment, promotional pay scale etc. and after attaining the age of superannuation, they were retired, but the pension was not being given to them, as a result, they put their grievance before the Raebareli Development Authority and it was informed to them that as they were regularized against temporary post as per the Rules 2011, they are not entitled for pension. It is next submitted that the applicants preferred a writ petition before this Court, i.e., Writ-A No. 1618 of 2024, which was disposed of, after exchange of afÏdavit, on 30.07.2024 with the observation that the applicants were regularized in service on temporary post, which was extended on year to year basis as they were not working against the permanent post. It was also observed therein that Secretary, Department of Housing and Urban Planning, Government of U.P., Lucknow and Vice Chairman, Raebareli Development Authority were directed to take final decision with regard to the issue of permanency of posts, on which, the applicants were engaged; such a decision was to be taken by the authorities within a period of six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of the order; in case the decision is taken for granting permanency to the post on which petitioners are engaged, their grievance regarding confirmation and grant of service benefits in parity with regular employees of the authority shall also be considered and decided within a period of six weeks thereafter. It is also submitted that the order of the writ Court was served on respondent nos.1 and 3, but till today, final decision has not been taken by the respondents on the permanency of post conjointly, therefore, the respondent nos.1 and 3 may be summoned and punished accordingly.

4. Sri Amrendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent no.1 submits that prior to issuance of direction of the writ Court, a request was made by Raebareli Development Authority vide letters dated 14.03.2024 and 15.03.2024 for permanency of the post on which the applicants were working, but the State Government informed the Vice Chairman, Raebareli Development Authority that the retiral benefits can only be given to the employee working on Class-IV post in the Development Authority, those were working against substantive posts.

5. Sri Asit Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel submits that a letter was written to the State Government on 23.09.2024 by respondent no.3 informing permanency is not possible at the stage of the Raebareli Development Authority and again second letter dated 26.12.2024 was also written by respondent no.3 to the State Government requesting necessary instructions, and thereafter, letters were also written on 02.04.2025 and 08.04.2025 regarding decision which has to be taken for permanency of the post and regarding necessary instructions for payment of pension to the applicants, as admittedly they were regularized on year to year basis.

6. It is evident from the record that now, decision and necessary orders are to be passed by the State Government either for permanency of posts on which the applicants are working prior to the date of superannuation or for payment of retiral benefits.

7. List this case on 30.04.2025 at 11:30 A.M.

8. By the next date, respondent no.1 shall file fresh comprehensive afÏdavit of compliance explaining therein that why the order related to the permanency of post has not been passed till today, failing which, he shall appear in person before this Court for the purposes of framing of charge."

4. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, afÏdavit of compliance duly sworn by the respondent no. 1-Mr. P. Guruprasad, Principal Secretary, Department of Housing & Urban Planning, Government of U.P., Lucknow is filed by Shri Amrendra Pratap Singh, learned Standing Counsel, which is taken on record. It is submitted that decision has already been taken in the case of the applicants on 26.04.2025. It is also informed that as the sufÏcient permanent posts were available in Raebareli Development Authority, therefore, permanency of further posts are not needed. Learned Standing Counsel also submits that the Raebareli Development Authority has also written that there is no need for permanency of any post.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants, on the other hand, submits that the decision on the issue of permanency on the post, on which, the applicants were engaged, has not been taken by the respondent in pursuance of the direction of the writ Court. It is also submitted that the retiral benefits are also not being paid to the applicants and, therefore, the respondents may be summoned and punished accordingly.

6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants, learned Standing Counsel and going through the order of writ Court as well as contents of the afÏdavit of compliance along with OfÏce Memo dated

26.04.2025 passed by respondent no. 1, this Court is of the view that no case of contempt is made out.

7. The application, accordingly, stands dismissed.

8. However, it is open to the applicants to take avail appropriate remedy against the decision of the respondents, if they feel so aggrieved. Order Date :- 30.4.2025 VKS VIVEK KUMAR SRIVASTAVA VIVEK KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench