President Sir matter is concerned with judiciary but sent to Govt of U.P.

Grievance for Registration No: PRSEC/E/2019/21802

Please direct the concerned public authority to entertain my grievance and ensure Right to Justice.Matter is serious and needs utmost attention in order to establish the faith of common people in administration of justice in the government of India.

संदर्भ संख्या : 60000190180605 , दिनांक – 26 Dec 2019 तक की स्थिति

आवेदनकर्ता का विवरण : शिकायत संख्या:-60000190180605

आवेदक का नामYogi M P Singh

विषयPlease direct the concerned public authority to entertain my grievance and ensure Right to Justice. Matter is serious and needs utmost attention in order to establish the faith of common people in administration of justice in the government of India.

विभाग

शिकायत श्रेणी नियोजित तारीख15-01-2020

शिकायत की स्थितिस्तर जनपद स्तर पद जिलाधिकारी

प्राप्त रिमाइंडरप्राप्त फीडबैक फीडबैक की स्थिति

संलग्नक देखें

Click here

नोट– अंतिम कॉलम में वर्णित सन्दर्भ की स्थिति कॉलम-5 में अंकित अधिकारी के स्तर पर हुयी कार्यवाही दर्शाता है!

अग्रसारित विवरण :

क्र..

सन्दर्भ का प्रकार

आदेश देने वाले अधिकारी

प्राप्त/आपत्ति दिनांक

नियत दिनांक

अधिकारी को प्रेषित

आदेश

स्थिति

1

अंतरित

लोक शिकायत अनुभाग -3(, मुख्यमंत्री कार्यालय )

16-12-2019

15-01-2020

जिलाधिकारीमिर्ज़ापुर,

कृपया शीघ्र नियमानुसार कार्यवाही किये जाने की अपेक्षा की गई है।

अधीनस्थ को प्रेषित

2

आख्या

जिलाधिकारी ( )

17-12-2019

15-01-2020

जिला विद्यालय निरीक्षकमिर्ज़ापुर,माध्‍यमिक शिक्षा विभाग

नियमनुसार आवश्यक कार्यवाही करें

कार्यालय स्तर पर लंबित

Pasted from <http://www.jansunwai.up.nic.in/fullCompDetailsOfUser.html?complanitcode=60000190180605&iemail=&mob=7379105911&randomkey=49rhe5&captcha=7560&comtype=0>

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

Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh <yogimpsingh@gmail.com> 15 April 2019 at 03:10
To: supremecourt <supremecourt@nic.in>, pmosb <pmosb@pmo.nic.in>, presidentofindia@rb.nic.in, urgent-action <urgent-action@ohchr.org>, cmup <cmup@up.nic.in>, hgovup@up.nic.in, csup@up.nic.in, uphrclko <uphrclko@yahoo.co.in>, lokayukta@hotmail.com
An application under article 32 of the constitution of the India.
To 
                                             Hon’ble Chief Justice of India/ companion judges
                                                     Apex court of Judicature in India.
                                                                New Delhi, India
Prayer-श्री मान जी क्या भारतीय न्याय व्यवस्था साधारण वेतनमान और वेतनमान दोनों का मतलब एक ही निकलता है |
श्री मान जी अनुपूरक काउंटर शपथ पत्र में जो की प्रत्यावेदन के साथ संलग्न है उसमे साधारण वेतनमान की व्याख्या विद्वान सरकारी अधिवक्ता द्वारा किया गया है |श्री मान जी अगर व्याख्या सिर्फ  वेतनमान की किया जाय तो क्या कुछ परिवर्तन हो सकता है अनुपूरक काउंटर शपथ पत्र में यदि नही तो माध्यमिक शिक्षा निदेशालय के विद्वान नौकरशाहों ने साधारण वेतनमान शब्द का प्रयोग करके लिपिक राजेंद्र प्रताप सिंह पुत्र देवराज सिंह को  मानसिक व शारीरिक प्रताड़ना क्यों दी|
Most revered Sir –Your applicant invites the kind attention of Hon’ble Sir with due respect to following submissions as follows.
1-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that  51A. Fundamental duties It shall be the duty of every citizen of India (a) to abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions, the National Flag and the National Anthem;(h) to develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform;
(i) to safeguard public property and to abjure violence;

(j) to strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity so that the nation constantly rises to higher levels of endeavour and achievement

 .
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 is 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 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.”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 |

4-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that when the aforementioned order of the Hon’ble High court of judicature was not complied by the concerned staffs of secondary education government of the Uttar Pradesh, then aggrieved petitioner again took shelter in the High court of Judicature at Allahabad. Following order was passed by the Hon’ble court.

 

5It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that when aforementioned order passed by the Hon’ble High court of judicature at Allahabad was not complied by the concerned staffs, then aggrieved petitioner submitted contempt of court petition by making Joint director as the party by name.

 

6It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that contempt notice was served to the joint director but concerned instead of complying the order of the High court of Judicature were busy in physically and mentally torture to the petitioner Rajendra Pratap Singh and following impugned letter dated 01/02/2006 is one of those instruments.

 

श्री मान जी उपरोक्त से स्पष्ट है शिक्षा निदेशक उत्तर प्रदेश इलाहाबाद अर्थ -१ का पत्र सेवा समाप्ति अवधि का साधारण वेतनमान की बात कर रहा है और सभी जानते है की साधारण वेतनमान और वेतनमान में अंतर है |उस समय के तत्कालीन जिला विद्यालय निरीक्षक फरहाना सिद्धिकी द्वारा याचिकाकर्ता को जिला मुख्यालय पर तलब किया गया और साधारण वेतनमान के वेतन बिल प्रस्तुत करने के लिए कहा गया जब प्रार्थी द्वारा इनकार किया गया तब दूसरा बिल बना समय लाभ को काट दिया गया जिससे टालमटोल को छुपाया जा सके |इतनी बड़ी गड़बड़ी तब की गई जब न्यायालय अवमानना की तलवार सर पे लटक रही थी | श्री मान जी समय वेतनमान का लाभ न देने का कारण सेवा समाप्ति अवधि का सेवा संतोषजनक न होना | श्री मान जी जब सेवा ली ही नही गई तो संतोष जनक व असंतोष जनक कैसा | श्री मान जी माननीय उच्च न्यायालय के उस आदेश का क्या हुआ जिसके अनुसार समस्त सेवा लाभ के साथ बहाल किया गया था |
7It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that श्री मान जी विद्वान सरकारी अधिवक्ता ने कितनी चालाकी से साधारण वेतनमान को वेतनमान की व्याख्या से न्यायोचित ठहराया है और माध्यमिक शिक्षा के अधिकारिओं को who were acting like inscrutable face of sphinx were proved to be justified because of intelligence of the learned government council. Sir undoubtedly situation is precarious and going to be worse because of such cryptic approaches.
                                     This is a humble request of the applicant to you Hon’ble Sir that how can it be justified to withhold public services arbitrarily and promote anarchy, lawlessness, and chaos in an arbitrary manner by making the mockery of law of land? This is need of the hour to take harsh steps against the wrongdoer in order to win the confidence of citizenry and strengthen the democratic values for healthy and prosperous democracy. For this, your applicant shall ever pray you, Hon’ble Sir.                                                         
                                                                                                                             Yours sincerely
Date-15-04-2019              Yogi M. P. Singh, Mobile number-7379105911, Mohalla- Surekapuram, Jabalpur Road, District-Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh, Pin code-231001.
 

 

2 attachments
Sup Counter affidavit.docx
9691K
Sup Counter affidavit.pdf
3026K

Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh <yogimpsingh@gmail.com> 16 April 2019 at 11:51
To: supremecourt <supremecourt@nic.in>, pmosb <pmosb@pmo.nic.in>, presidentofindia@rb.nic.in, urgent-action <urgent-action@ohchr.org>, cmup <cmup@up.nic.in>, hgovup@up.nic.in, csup@up.nic.in, uphrclko <uphrclko@yahoo.co.in>, lokayukta@hotmail.com
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 is 16/04/2004 order passed by Justice Jgadish Bhalla) .
According to submission 6 in the supplementary counter affidavit -Deponent most respectfully submits that the term “Sadharan Vetanman” used in the order 01/02/2006 passed by assistant deputy director of education refers to the initial pay scale of the feeding cadre in which employee was initially appointed. The petitioner was initially appointed on the post of clerk (group C post) in the pay scale of Rs.950-20-1150-EB-25-1500.
Hon’ble Sir may be pleased to take a glance of the impugned order dated 01/02/2006 of Director secondary education Arth-1 conveyed through Assistant Deputy Director of Education to concerned subordinates in order to ratify.

 

3-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that 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.”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 |

 

Why Director secondary Education Arth-1 passed the cryptic order of Sadharan Vetanman dated-01/02/2006 by superseding the order of the High court of judicature dated-16-April-2004 and after too much procrastination and overlooking the subsequent Judgments/directions passed by High court of Judicature at Allahabad?
Now it seems that I should not had faith in judiciary but what can be done now. Even District Inspector of School at that time advised me that without commission they will not grant sanction but at that time I had full faith in the judiciary and its contempt but latter tragic incidences broken me gradually. Think about the fee of advocates and physical economical and other problems with mental trauma could be avoided if their illegal demand had been fulfilled. Pay bill was prepared under their advice so there was no such problem it created when they understood that I will never accept their unlawful demand and next writ then contempt petition was filled in the matter.
Sadharan Vetanman is a derogatory remark on the aforementioned order of the court and impugned order dated 01/02/2006 will setup bad precedent so liable to be quashed as such cryptic orders only promote corruption in the system. All consequential benefits and Sadharan Vetanman both are contrary words. At that time they told me that these funds are sanctioned when we pay commission to the government so how can I pay without taking commission? They were pressurizing writ petitioner to make the bill in the pay scale of Rs.950-20-1150-EB-25-1500 which is the real meaning of the Sadharan Vetanman but aggrieved petitioner did not do so. They were not talking of the subsequent modifications. First bill was prepared by the writ petitioner under the guidance of the office of district inspector of school Mirzapur. When writ petitioner denied then bill was made in the office of DIOS Mirzapur abruptly by summoning staff of the college concerned as joint director education had to appear before the High court of judicature at Allahabad with the compliance of the order.

           This is a humble request of the applicant to you Hon’ble Sir that how can it be justified to withhold public services arbitrarily and promote anarchy, lawlessness, and chaos in an arbitrary manner by making the mockery of law of land? This is need of the hour to take harsh steps against the wrongdoer in order to win the confidence of citizenry and strengthen the democratic values for healthy and prosperous democracy. For this, your applicant shall ever pray you, Hon’ble Sir.                                                         

                                                                                                                             Yours sincerely
Date-16-04-2019              Yogi M. P. Singh, Mobile number-7379105911, Mohalla- Surekapuram, Jabalpur Road, District-Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh, Pin code-231001.


[Quoted text hidden]

Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh <yogimpsingh@gmail.com> 19 July 2019 at 21:34
To: supremecourt <supremecourt@nic.in>, pmosb <pmosb@pmo.nic.in>, presidentofindia@rb.nic.in, urgent-action <urgent-action@ohchr.org>, cmup <cmup@up.nic.in>, hgovup@up.nic.in, csup@up.nic.in, uphrclko <uphrclko@yahoo.co.in>, lokayukta@hotmail.com

a

Court No. – 28

Case :- WRIT – A No. – 20121 of 2006

Petitioner :- Rajendra Pratap Singh

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- P.C. Chauhan,P.S.Chauhan,S.P. Singh

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon’ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents

No.2 to 4. This Court by order dated 13.4.2006 had directed the

respondents to explain the term “ससाधसारण ववेतनमसान “. The counter

affidavit has not explained the aforesaid term. A supplementary

affidavit shall be filed by the respondents explaining the terms

ससाधसारण ववेतनमसान “.

Put up this matter on 24.09.2018 in the additional cause list.

Prima facie, the order appears to be in violation of the orders

passed by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.1980 of

1991 (Rajendra Pratap Singh Vs. Committee of Management,

Smt. Ramwanti Devi Bench Madhav, Higher Secondary School,

Navgaon, District-Mirzapur and others on 16.9.2005. The Court

has accorded utmost urgency to the matter in view of the prima

facie violation of orders passed by this Court.

Order Date :- 11.9.2018

Ashish Tripathi

An application under article 32 of the constitution of the India.

To
                                             Hon’ble Chief Justice of India/ companion judges
                                                     Apex court of Judicature in India.
                                                                New Delhi, India

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 practice?
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
R.P. Singh3.PNG
2-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that considerable portion of public exchequer is being spent on the judiciary so accountability of its members and transparency in its function must be ensured by the accountable public functionaries.
Dismiss other than merit(DD/Non Prosec./Abated) Dismiss in Default/Non procedural security/contrary to public policy
Right to reason is the indispensable part of sound judicial system.
Hon’ble Sir please take a glance of historic judgement delivered by apex court of India. Accountability must be ensured in order to achieve good governance.
Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning M.R. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union (1971 (1) All E.R. 1148) observed “The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration”. In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree (1974 LCR 120) it was observed: “Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice”. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at”. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the “inscrutable face of the sphinx”, it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the Courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before Court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking out. The “inscrutable face of a sphinx” is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance.
3-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that 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.
It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that gate pass can be only available  either through staffs of court if advocate may seek. Which implies that a petitioner can easily be deprived from attending the case proceedings which is his fundamental right. Most surprising is that same is being done by the chief justice High court of judicature at Allahabad.
It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that justice seeker is the essential component/pole of the case instituted in any court of law by him and deprive justice seeker from attending the case instituted by him which law of land justify it? Why High court of judicature interested in proceedings by not allowing petitioners or their credible relatives?
It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that to provide security to the judicial members ,Advocates and litigants itself is the obligatory duty of the state government under the monitoring of central government through His Excellency. It is unfortunate that by taking the recourse of issue of security , protectors of constitutional rights of citizens depriving the litigants from participating the court proceedings.
4-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that
Diary Number
Applicant Name
Petition date Diary No.
Year
/SCI/PIL(E)/
Diary No.-20477/SCI/PIL(E)/2019
Application Date-16-04-2019
Received On-29-04-2019
Applicant Name-YOGI MP SINGH
Address-SUREKAPURAM JABALPUR ROAD MIRZAPUR
State-UTTAR PRADESH
Action Taken
UNDER PROCESS

 

[Quoted text hidden]

 

5 comments on President Sir matter is concerned with judiciary but sent to Govt of U.P.

  1. Now it seems that I should not had faith in judiciary but what can be done now. Even District Inspector of School at that time advised me that without commission they will not grant sanction but at that time I had full faith in the judiciary and its contempt but latter tragic incidences broken me gradually. Think about the fee of advocates and physical economical and other problems with mental trauma could be avoided if their illegal demand had been fulfilled. Pay bill was prepared under their advice so there was no such problem it created when they understood that I will never accept their unlawful demand and next writ then contempt petition was filled in the matter.

  2. It is vitally important in a democracy that individual judges and the judiciary as a whole are impartial and independent of all external pressures and of each other so that those who appear before them and the wider public can have confidence that their cases will be decided fairly and in accordance with the law. When carrying out their judicial function they must be free of any improper influence. Such influence could come from any number of sources. It could arise from improper pressure by the executive or the legislature, by individual litigants, particular pressure groups, the media, self-interest or other judges, in particular more senior judges.

  3. Why are you not following this order? Whether it is not contempt of court? But corrupt judicial members compromised with the credibility of the judiciary.
    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.”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 |

  4. Forth with petitioner shall be entitled for entire consequential benefits but he will be entitled for half of the emoluments of the salary for the period of pending of the litigation but now they are providing Sadharan vetanman whether it is not against the spirit of the judgement delivered by the high court of judicature at Allahabad? Why high court is not instrumental in providing the all consequential benefits? If they are providing Sadharan vetanman then where is gone all consequential benefits? If 80000 bribe was provided to the director at the time then everything was ok otherwise Highcourt of judicature at Allahabad itself is failed in providing justice

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: