Fate of aggrieved Rajendra Pratap Singh will be decided on 11/01/2016 in court number 7 of high court.

Case Status – Allahabad
Pending
Writ – A / 20121 /
2006 [Mirzapur]
Petitioner:
RAJENDRA PRATAP
SINGH
Respondent:
STATE OF U.P. AND
OTHERS
Counsel (Pet.):
P.C. CHAUHAN
Counsel (Res.):
C.S.C.
Category:
Service-Writ
Petitions Relating To Secondary Education (non Teaching Staff) (single
Bench)-Salary And Allowances
Date of Filing:
10/04/2006
Next Listed on:
11/01/2016 in
Court No. 7
Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh <yogimpsingh@gmail.com>
9:46 PM (1 minute ago)
to pmosb, cj, supremecourt, cmup, hgovup, urgent-action, csup, secypg, ddpg2-arpg, lokayukta
  • Director took
    under teeth the order of High court not DIOS so counter affidavit of
    Director is must.
Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M. P. Singh (yogimpsingh@gmail.com)
01-02-2013
   
To: ddpg2-arpg@nic.inpmosb@pmo.nic.insecypg@nic.inurgent-action@ohchr.orghgovup@up.nic.incsup@up.nic.incmup@up.nic.in
Outlook Active View
2
attachments (total 1020.6 KB)
Mockery
of order of Hon’ble High court by Director secondary education.pd
Downl
Why
anomaly is not being checked by the competent authorities.pdf
Download
Hon’ble
Sir-With due respect .your applicant wants to draw the kind attention of the
Hon’ble Sir to the following submissions as
follows.           1-It
is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that from the attachment it is obvious from
point 5 that salary fixation was made on 28.8.2004 by DIOS Mirzapur.  
                     
                     
                     
                     
                2-It is submitted
before the Hon’ble Sir that from the attachment it is obvious from point 6 that
on dated 6.11.2004 arrears Rs.409009.00 (from 1.8.90 to 2.6.2004) was sent to
joint director education (Arth) Allahabad for grant in order to get
sanctioned.                  
                     
                     
   3-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that from the attachment
it is obvious from points 7,8,9, reminders dated 14.1.2005 ,18.5.2005 and
21.6.2005 were sent to joint director education  (arth) Allahabad in order
to get the grant to be sanctioned so dues may be paid to Rajendra Pratap Singh
in to comply the order passed on 16.4.2004 by judicature of high court at
Allahabad but  these reminders were not taken seriously by aforesaid
authority. According to delivered delivered judgement dated 16.4.2004 –
“Accordingly,the impugned
order of dismissal dated 1.8.90 is quashed. The petitioner shall be reinstated
in the service forthwith and will be entitled to all the consequential benefits
. However , he will be entitled to only 50% of emoluments of salary for the
period of litigation up to the final order of this court.”    
                     
                     
                     
         
4-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that from the
attachment it is obvious from point 
 10
that on 13.7.2005 , Director secondary education , uttar pradesh .Lucknow was
apprised with the fact that sanction of grant is awaited at the level of joint
director education (arth) Allahabad. 
  
                     
    
5-It
is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that from the attachment it is obvious from
points 12 and 13 that the order of Hon’ble High court Allahabad  dated
16.9.2005 was
 for
 
joint
director education (arth) Allahabad.
                 
                     
                     
                     
                  
6-It is submitted before the
Hon’ble Sir that from the attachment it is obvious from points 14 that
 director education
(arth) Allahabad
 returned
back the documents sent in order to sanction grant  to pay dues through
letter 1.2.2006 with quote that according to High court ,ordinary salary be
paid of termination period so new salary fixation be made available. Whatever
proceeding made by DIOS in more than one year same was made in 48 hours.  
                     
                     
                     
                    
7-It is submitted before the
Hon’ble Sir that
 whether
Hon’ble High court has said in its order that petitioner be deprived all
consequential benefits during the termination period ? no Hon’ble court said
as- “Accordingly,the impugned order of dismissal dated 1.8.90 is
quashed. The petitioner shall be reinstated in the service forthwith and will
be entitled to all the consequential benefits . However , he will be entitled
to only 50% of emoluments of salary for the period of litigation up to the
final order of this court.” Ordinary salary word was created by 
director education (arth)
Allahabad
 
                     
                     
                     
             
8-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that
from the attachment it is obvious from points 15
  that aggrieved petitioner took the shelter fourth time in the
High court at Allahabad and filed petition against the impugned order dated
1.2.2006 issued by director education (arth) Allahabad and Hon’ble
High court passed the in writ no.20121/06 on 13.4.2006 that apparently
the director education (arth) Allahabad through its order dated
1.2.2006 took under teeth the direction of High court ……. so counter
affidavit may be submitted within ….. but counter affidavit was submitted by
DIOS Mirzapur not by three others. More surprising is that director
education (arth) Allahabad itself didn’t submit counter affidavit.  
                     
                     
                     
                     
  
9-It
is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that
 order passed  by High court at Allahabad
on13.4.2006  was specially against director education (arth)
Allahabad but the counter affidavit was submitted by DIOS on behalf of other
three senior rank officer to DIOS. Here this question arises that whether for
aforesaid impugned order of Director education (arth) Allahabad DIOS is
accountable. When my father will get the justice? 
     This is
humble request to you Hon’ble Sir that Right to justice is the fundamental
right and right to reason is indispensable part of sound judicial system as
quoted by Hon’ble Apex court on number occasions  but both are absent in
this case. Multiple cases are being filed but no result is cultivated and
erring staff of Government is not booked because process of the courts are far
away from real offender and core issues.  For this your applicant shall
ever pray you Hon’ble Sir.              
                     
       
                                                                                                                   
 Yours sincerely              
                     
                     
                     
    Yogi M. P. Singh, Moh-Surekapuram , Jabalpur Road,

Please direct concerned to comply the order of Hon’ble Chief Information Commissioner of India.

 

Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh yogimpsingh@gmail.com

Attachments11:26 PM (0 minutes ago)

 

to cjdhirendra.ksupremecourtsecy-cicak.dash

 

Hon’ble Sir your applicant frequently informed CPIO ,High court of judicature at Allahabad to comply the order passed by Hon’ble Chief Information Commissioner of India but irksome delay on the part of him is not only undermining the authority of most revered constitutional post but also lowering the dignity of High court of judicature at Allahabad.
02 January 2016
22:11
With due respect your applicant wants to draw the kind attention of the Hon’ble Sir to the following submissions as follows.
1-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that Hon’ble Sir may be pleased to take a glance of following e-mail and attached documents with this representation.
Hon’ble Sir please direct central public information officer to comply the order dated 04/11/2015 passed by Hon’ble chief information commissioner of India.
Yogi M. P. Singh <yogimpsingh@gmail.com>
    11/15/15
    to cj
Hon’ble Sir please direct central public information officer to comply the order dated 04/11/2015 passed by Hon’ble chief information commissioner of India.
15 November 2015
09:47
To
                                                Hon’ble chief justice of High court of judicature at Allahabad                                                  District -Allahabad , Uttar Pradesh
Subject-Request to ensure compliance of order dated -04/11/2015 passed by Hon’ble C.I.C. as consequent of hearing dated -26/10/2015. in appeal CIC/CC/A/2014/001147/VS.
With due respect your applicant wants to draw the kind attention of the Hon’ble Sir to the following submissions as follows.
1-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that order dated-04/11/2015 passed by Hon’ble C.I.C. Of  India is uploaded on the website of central information commission of India of which downloaded copy is attached with this representation. Hon’ble Sir may be pleased to take a glance of attached document with this representation.
Decision:
4. The respondent is directed to provide the appellant, within 30 days of this order,
information sought in the RTI application.
The appeal is disposed of. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
                                                                                                   (Vijai Sharma)
                                                                                      Chief Information Commissioner
2-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that Hon’ble Sir-Plese take a glance of order of High Court at Allahabad dated 13.4.2006 in writ no.20121 of 2006 delivered by justice Tarun Agrawala as follows- Apparently , the impugned order dated. 1.2.2006 is against the teeth of the direction given by this court in its judgement dated 16.5.2005(it may be 16/04/2004 order passed by Justice Jgadish Bhalla) .Standing Counsel appearing for respondent no.1 to 4 will file counter affidavit within three weeks explaining as to what the respondent mean by the words “Sadharan Vetanman”. List immediately thereafter. Sd/-Tarun Agarwala J. 13.4.2006 Respondents-1-Director secondary education Arth-1 Allahabad ( is the necessary party in the matter concerned) 2-Assistant deputy director secondary education working in the of director of secondary education .Allahabad. 3-D.D.R. Mirzapur.4-DIOS Mirzapur. 5-Committee of management R.I.C. Naugaon ,Mirzapur.
3-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that Here counter affidavit was submitted on behalf of DIOS Mirzapur on behalf of respondent no.2,3,4, most surprising is that DIOS Mirzapur  states in its letter that he had complied the order of court but same was returned back by director secondary education Arth-1 Allahabad . But the necessary party in the case ie respondent no.1 who superseded the judgement of court dated- 16/04/2004 order passed by Justice Jgadish Bhalla attached with this representation still did not abide by the order of High Court. Hon’ble Sir- Even a common man can understand that order passed in the writ no.20121 of year 2006 is against the impugned order dated 1.2.2006 passed by director education Arth-1  Allahabad. Here this question arises that when counter affidavit was not submitted by director ,then how court will ascertain the role of director if he is found guilty of non -compliance  the order whether that will require one more writ already five writs filed by petitioner in order to seek justice so that his accountability may be decided. Why director secondary education Arth Allahabad did not comply the direction of High court at Allahabad? DIOS Mirzapur can submit its own submissions not on behalf of respondent 2 and 3 whether view points of DIOS can be view points of respondent 2 and 3. Respondent 2 and 3 still did not submit any counter submissions. Here petioner is aggrieved with the director as he superseded the direction of High court.
                                               
This is humble request of your applicant to you Hon’ble Sir that It can never be justified to overlook  the rights of citizenry by delivering services in arbitrary manner by floating all set up norms. This is sheer mismanagement which is encouraging wrongdoers to reap benefit of loopholes in system and depriving poor citizens from right to justice. Therefore it is need of hour to take concrete steps in order to curb grown anarchy in the system. For this your applicant shall ever pray you Hon’ble Sir.
                           ‘Yours  sincerely
                            Yogi M. P. Singh
Mohalla-Surekapuram, Jabalpur Road District-Mirzapur , Uttar Pradesh ,India .
Ensure compliance of order of Hon’ble C.I.C..pdf
2-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that
Subject-Request to ensure compliance of order dated -04/11/2015 passed by Hon’ble C.I.C. as consequent of hearing dated -26/10/2015. in appeal CIC/CC/A/2014/001147/VS.
4. The respondent is directed to provide the appellant, within 30 days of this order,
information sought in the RTI application.
The appeal is disposed of. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
                                                                                                   (Vijai Sharma)
                                                                                      Chief Information Commissioner

2 comments on Fate of aggrieved Rajendra Pratap Singh will be decided on 11/01/2016 in court number 7 of high court.

  1. Hon'ble Sir-Plese take a glance of order of High Court at Allahabad dated 13.4.2006 in writ no.20121 of 2006 delivered by justice Tarun Agrawala as follows- Apparently , the impugned order dated. 1.2.2006 is against the teeth of the direction given by this court in its judgement dated 16.5.2005(it may be 16/04/2004 order passed by Justice Jgadish Bhalla) .Standing Counsel appearing for respondent no.1 to 4 will file counter affidavit within three weeks explaining as to what the respondent mean by the words "Sadharan Vetanman". List immediately thereafter. Sd/-Tarun Agarwala J. 13.4.2006 Respondents-1-Director secondary education Arth-1 Allahabad ( is the necessary party in the matter concerned) 2-Assistant deputy director secondary education working in the of director of secondary education .Allahabad. 3-D.D.R. Mirzapur.4-DIOS Mirzapur. 5-Committee of management R.I.C. Naugaon ,Mirzapur.
    3-It is submitted before the Hon'ble Sir that Here counter affidavit was submitted on behalf of DIOS Mirzapur on behalf of respondent no.2,3,4, most surprising is that DIOS Mirzapur states in its letter that he had complied the order of court but same was returned back by director secondary education Arth-1 Allahabad . But the necessary party in the case ie respondent no.1 who superseded the judgement of court dated- 16/04/2004 order passed by Justice Jgadish Bhalla attached with this representation still did not abide by the order of High Court. Hon'ble Sir- Even a common man can understand that order passed in the writ no.20121 of year 2006 is against the impugned order dated 1.2.2006 passed by director education Arth-1 Allahabad. Here this question arises that when counter affidavit was not submitted by director ,then how court will ascertain the role of director if he is found guilty of non -compliance the order whether that will require one more writ already five writs filed by petitioner in order to seek justice so that his accountability may be decided. Why director secondary education Arth Allahabad did not comply the direction of High court at Allahabad? DIOS Mirzapur can submit its own submissions not on behalf of respondent 2 and 3 whether view points of DIOS can be view points of respondent 2 and 3. Respondent 2 and 3 still did not submit any counter submissions. Here petioner is aggrieved with the director as he superseded the direction of High court.

  2. Undoubtedly the order passed by high court of judicature at Allahabad was not complied by the director secondary education arth Allahabad because of its tyrannical nature. We expect that Honorable bench will take appropriate steps so that Bureaucrats may not show the such tyranny to the order of high court of judicature at Allahabad. Here this question arises that High court itself made remarks against director that he took under teeth the direction of high court under teeth. Undoubtedly director secondary education has set up bad precedent by taking the direction of high court under teeth.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: