When impugned order of director dated 1.2.2006 was challenged ,they why counter affidavit not submitted by director.

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, 

Pasted
from <
http://yogimpsingh.blogspot.in/2013/11/if-director-superseded-order-of-court.html?showComment=1398323058824>

Grievance Status

Print || Logout
Status as on 24 Apr 2014

Registration Number : GOVUP/E/2013/00530
Name Of Complainant : Yogi M P Singh
Date of Receipt : 08 Apr 2013
Received by : Government of Uttar Pradesh
Officer name : Shri R.N. Mourya
Officer Designation : Under Secretary (PG)
Contact Address : Chief Minister Secretariat
U.P. Secretariat,
Lucknow226001
Contact Number : 05222215137
Grievance Description : 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 . 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 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. Here counter affidavit was submitted on behalf of DIOS Mirzapur on behalf of respondent no.2,3,4. But main accused ie respondent no.1 who superseded the judgement of court 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 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 noncomplying the order whether that will require one more writ 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. 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.
Current Status : RECEIVED THE GRIEVANCE

3 comments on When impugned order of director dated 1.2.2006 was challenged ,they why counter affidavit not submitted by director.

  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 . 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 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. Here counter affidavit was submitted on behalf of DIOS Mirzapur on behalf of respondent no.2,3,4. But main accused ie respondent no.1 who superseded the judgement of court 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 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 noncomplying the order whether that will require one more writ 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. 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. Since eight years passed and counter affidavit was not filed by director is showing that Director has no regard for High court. Here poor and downtrodden are grinding in corruption . There is sheer anarchy even in proceedings of court. When court took under teeth the direction of High court ,then he should be punished but high court has been teethless.

  3. As quoted in the text of post "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". High court must take the cognizance of it and carelessness on the part of director secondary education must not be overlooked. Director must be severely punished for passing the order against the teeth of high court. The act of director secondary education have lowered the dignity of the court.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: