At least one opportunity may be provided to son of aggrieved to represent case instead of dismissing without looking into merit of the case in the name that no one of counsels came to press the case.
ठीक है अधिवक्ता के न उपस्थित होने पर केस ख़ारिज कर दिया गया किन्तु खुद ब्यथित पुत्र को एक मौका दे
श्री मान केस गिरने से अधिवक्ता का कोई नुकसान नही हुआ जो कुछ नुकसान हुआ है वह याचिकाकर्ता का हुआ है इसलिए न्यायहित पुत्र को एक मौका दिया जाय पक्ष रखने का जो की न्याय के नैसर्गिक सिद्धांत के अनुसार न्यायोचित है श्री मान जी को गुण दोष के अनुसार न्याय करने और तार्किक निर्णय सुनाने में कोई दिक्कत नही होगी |
ठीक है अधिवक्ता के न उपस्थित होने पर केस ख़ारिज कर दिया गया किन्तु खुद ब्यथित पुत्र को एक मौका दे
श्री मान केस गिरने से अधिवक्ता का कोई नुकसान नही हुआ जो कुछ नुकसान हुआ है वह याचिकाकर्ता का हुआ है इसलिए न्यायहित पुत्र को एक मौका दिया जाय पक्ष रखने का जो की न्याय के नैसर्गिक सिद्धांत के अनुसार न्यायोचित है श्री मान जी को गुण दोष के अनुसार न्याय करने और तार्किक निर्णय सुनाने में कोई दिक्कत नही होगी |
श्री मान जी केस को बिना गुण दोष की विवेचना किये DD/Non Prosec./Abated माननीय उच्च न्यायालय के न्याय मूर्ति महोदय ने बर्खास्त कर दिया | सोचिये १३ वर्ष पुराना केस कोई अंतरिम आदेश नही माननीय न्यायाधीश महोदय ही बता दे साधारण वेतन मान का मतलब यदि उन्हें मालुम हो गया हो तो | साधारण वेतनमान शब्द ही ८० हजार रुपये घुस जो की जो की शिक्षा निदेशक के कार्यालय द्वारा मागा गया ब्यथित द्वारा न देने की वजह से पैदा हुआ था जो की माननीय न्यायालय के आदेश का अवमानना था | मै खुद बहस के लिए तैयार हूँ पिता जी की ओर से लोअर कोर्ट में अपने केसेस मै खुद देखता हूँ | यदि न्यायलय अवसर दे तो और माननीय अधिवक्ता महोदय को तो केस वर्खास्त होने के दो दिन पहले पिता जी दो हजार रुपये दे कर आये है वैसे पाच हजार माग रहे थे किन्तु उनके पास दो हजार रुपये ही थे उस समय बाद में देने का आश्वासन भी दिए थे |
Sir, no interim order has been passed in the matter and petitioner is pursuing the case since 2006, attorney of the petitioner could not attend the case on 17-04-2019 because of illness and prayer of adjournment overlooked and 13 years old case being pursued by petitioner was arbitrarily dismissed without considering the merit of case. Whether canon of law allows such practices?
1-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that following judgment was delivered by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad on 17-April-2019 in the writ number-20121 year 2006. According to case status as follows, if the case is disposed, then litigant is curious to know the reason how the court reached on the conclusion to dismiss the case by overlooking the orders of the same court passed earlier in the matter. Hon’ble Sir may be pleased to take a glance of the following notes / orders passed Hon’ble High court of judicature at Allahabad
High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Status : Search by Case Number
Case Status – WRIT – A ( WRIA ) – [ 20121/2006 ]
Filing No.
|
WRIA/20121/2006
|
Filing
Date : 10-04-2006 |
CNR
|
UPHC011291832006
|
Date
of Registration : 10-04-2006 |
Case Status
First
Hearing Date |
08th
January 2018 |
Date
of Decision |
17th
April 2019 |
Case
Status |
Case
Disposed |
Nature
of Disposal |
Dismiss
other than merit(DD/Non Prosec./Abated) |
Stage
of Case |
For
Admission |
Coram
( Hon’ble Mr./Ms./Dr. Justice ) |
SUNEET
KUMAR ( 5038 ) |
Bench
Type |
Single
Bench |
Judicial
Branch |
WRITS
Civil |
Causelist
Type |
—
|
State
|
UTTARPRADESH
|
District
|
MIRZAPUR
|
Petitioner/Respondent and their Advocate(s)
Petitioner
|
Respondent
|
RAJENDRA
PRATAP SINGH Advocate
– P.C. CHAUHAN, P.S.CHAUHAN , S.P. SINGH |
STATE
OF U.P. AND OTHERS Advocate
– C.S.C. |
Category Details
Category
|
WRIT
PETITIONS RELATING TO SECONDARY EDUCATION (NON TEACHING STAFF) (SINGLE BENCH) ( 15900 ) |
Sub Category
|
Salary
and allowances ( 5 ) |
IA Details
Application(s) Number
|
Party
|
Date of Filing
|
Next / Disposal Date
|
IA Status
|
IA/2/2006
( 76919/2006 ) Classification : Stay Application Bench : 1007 |
RAJENDRA
PRATAP SINGH Vs STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS |
10-04-2006
|
Pending
|
|
IA/3/2006
( 222357/2006 ) Classification : Listing Application Bench : 5127 |
RAJENDRA
PRATAP SINGH Vs STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS |
17-10-2006
|
19-10-2006
|
Disposed
|
IA/1/2006
( 265508/2007 ) Classification : Listing Application Bench : 1007 |
RAJENDRA
PRATAP SINGH Vs STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS |
06-11-2007
|
Pending
|
|
IA/4/2018 Classification : Suppl. Counter
Affidavit Bench : 4783 |
RAJENDRA
PRATAP SINGH Vs STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS |
03-11-2018
|
13-11-2018
|
Pending
|
Last Listing Detail
Cause List Type
|
Hon’ble Mr./Ms./Dr. Justice
|
Last Listing Date
|
Stage of Listing
|
Last Short Order
|
Daily
Cause List |
SUNEET
KUMAR ( Bench: 5038 ) |
17-04-2019
|
For
Admission |
PREMPTORILY
|
Disclaimer: This is not an authentic/certified copy of
the information regarding status of a case. Authentic/certified information may
be obtained under Chapter VIII Rule 30 of Allahabad High Court Rules. Mistake,
if any, may be brought to the notice of OSD(Judicial)(Computer).
![]() |
Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh <yogimpsingh@gmail.com> |
Please Sir at least name be corrected. 1 message |
![]() |
Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh <yogimpsingh@gmail.com> |
Whether साधारण वेतनमान can be explained by giving the explanation of वेतनमान a tool to frighten innocent and gullible people and promote corruption. 3 messages |
मै खुद बहस के लिए तैयार हूँ पिता जी की ओर से लोअर कोर्ट में अपने केसेस मै खुद देखता हूँ | यदि न्यायलय अवसर दे तो और माननीय अधिवक्ता महोदय को तो केस वर्खास्त होने के दो दिन पहले पिता जी दो हजार रुपये दे कर आये है वैसे पाच हजार माग रहे थे किन्तु उनके पास दो हजार रुपये ही थे उस समय बाद में देने का आश्वासन भी दिए थे |
श्री मान जी इस तरह याचिकाकर्ता को बिबादित बर्खास्तगी आदेश १.८.९० ख़ारिज करते हुए समस्त सेवा लाभ के साथ सेवा बहाल किया गया किन्तु बर्खास्तगी अवधि का ५० प्रतिशत emoluments of salary की पात्रता तय की |What is being done by Advocate and Judge in the case only they know, party does not know but consequent will directly affect the party neither judge nor advocate in particular writ petitioner? What a joke faith of the common people is still alive in the court because he is not allowed to watch the court proceedings.The human who asks for evidence in order to accept the existence of God, then how weaker and downtrodden section will have faith in the courts?
Undoubtedly the demand is public spirited and they must consider it but it is confirmed that because of rampant it would be rejected by the corrupt people in the judiciary.
At least one opportunity may be provided to son of aggrieved to represent case instead of dismissing without looking into merit of the case in the name that no one of counsels came to press the case.
Here it is quite obvious from the judgement of the apex court of India that right to reason is the indispensable part of sound judicial system but in this context judge of the high court overlooked this judgement and he delivered the judgement without going into the merit of the case in the impartial manner which is travesty of Justice and such practices must be stopped. There is rampant corruption in our Judiciary which must be kept at any cost and must be curbed and they must be treated like public servants actually.
Think what type of country is this where in order to comply the order of the high court of judicature director of the secondary education is asking 80000 as bribe when his demand was not fulfilled by the applicant then he superseded the order of the High court of judicature for the simple salary Sadharan vetanman which was against the spirit of the high court order passed by the high court of judicature at Allahabad but when the applicant took the shelter in the high court of judicature at Allahabad again he could not manage to get the justice whether it is not mockery of the laws of. The land where openly bribes are taken and even courts order are not complied without the bribery.