Bharat_Bachao

Chandra Shekhar 4th class employee getting RS. 450/- per Month salary under state Govt. Orders issued on 20. 2.1980 having exploitation prohibited under Article 23 of Constitution of India and under Minimum wages Act, 1948 applicable in U.P. Act. 12 of 1962 and contract labour Abolition Act, 1971. Writ petition filed in 1996 was allowed on 31.8.2004 on the bases of Judgement attended finality up to supreme Court. Chief Justice Sayyad Rafat Alam and Justice Vikram Nath admit it without any stay order. But when implementation of Judgement sought, the Judges unaware of Contempt Jurisdiction as merit demerit could not be examined and additional jurisdiction is conferred to punish contempt guilty officers continue to shield non compliance by another Bench. How ever when bench presided over by good honest judges i.e. Justice Yatindra Singh bench Justice Rakesh Tiwari, their lordship called upon the legal position and Govt. Orders justifying such exploitation of Bonded labour and in view of 5 Judges constitutional Bench of supreme Court case AIR 1980 SC directed Basic Shiksha Parishad to grant similar relief to such alleged part time Safai karmchari who used to work during school hours and in night as Night watch man under Govt. Orders. The orders were passed to demonstrate the position of identically placed exploited Employees. Some egoistic non sensitive judges to take this exploitation which is a crime as demand for equal work for equal salary, which is patently erroneous. Justice Sudhir Agrawal and Justice A.P.Sahi Bench have passed some errorneous orders, which are having no application as Dy. Inspector of school is empowered to appoint them and in event of vacancy get them absorbed. There is legitimate expectation and govt. Can not repudiate from promissory estopple. Payment to other by Justice Uma Nath Singh deciding number of cases has been given. I am placing this case to expose wide range corruption perpetuated by such judges who remained standing counsel and use to defend such corrupt officers and President and Secretary of Basic Shiksha Parishad by realising exhorbitant money and when these judges elevated to the bench, than open favouratism ruininghaving corruption orientation of High court comes to surface that some Advocate facing charge in getting forged orders from high court, by getting his clerk involved, may become the Chief standing counsel and also Additional Advocate general may influence other judges to get the effect of contempt Notice issued by most competent Judge Justice Anjani Kumar Mishra diluted by accepting the justification by passing wholly erroneous orders in the matter. This is unbecoming of such opportunist political affiliated counsel assigned with the responsibility of the High court Judge. This is an appeal to chief Justice of India #narendramodi #yogiadityanath to remove such Additional Advocate General from the post who have taken every resorts to get the mockery of the orders. My request to our great chief justice that how and why the registry in court no. 38 where the special Appeal 140 of 2005 with recall application was required to send at serial no. 47 has not been send in order to frustrate the order issued for contempt in December. 2017, which are still not complied with. Advocacy is not a trade, nor a business, but calling against injustices and when injustices done by judges like Justice Markande Katju, Justice Sunil Ambwani, Justice Ravindra Singh, Justice Vinod Prasad, justice I.M.Quddisi Justice Sabhajit Yadav, justice M.L.Singhal Justice V.K.Shukla against my client due to malicious extraneous considerations, your lordship have purify the esteem of Justice be allowed to run without impediment other wise it will collapse by it's own weight in due course of time.

Advocates Parliament

February 3

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
REJOINDER AFFIDAVIT
IN
CIVIL MISC. CONTEMPT APPLICATION NO. 5498 OF 2017
(Under Section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act)
(DISTRICT—AURAIYA)
Chandra shekhar S/O Nathu R/O village Rajumau, Block, Achalda, District Etawah ( Now District Auraiya) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Petitioner/Applicant
VERSUS
1. Sri R.P. Singh, Secretary, Basic Education, U.P., Lucknow
2. Sri Sanjay Sinha, Secretary, Basic Shikcha Parishad, U.P., Allahabad
3. Sri Shiv Pratap Yadav, Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Etawah
4. Sri O.P.Singh . Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Auraiya -------------
Contemnors-Opposite Parties
Affidavit of Chandra shekhar aged about 50 years S/O Nathu R/O village Rajumau, Block, Achalda, Tehsil Bidhuna, Than District Etawah ( Now District Auraiya) Religion Hindu, OBC Caste., Safai Karmchari , senior Basic Education Govt Service
(Deponent)
I, the deponent above named, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on
oath as under:-
1. That the deponent is the sole petitioner and as such fully conversant to the facts and circumstances of the case. The deponent has filed is identity with voter id filed along with his photo in support of this affidavit.
2. That the present contempt application is being filed by petitioner/ applicant against contemnors-opposite parties for non-compliance and willfully disobeying of judgement dated 31. 8.. 2004 passed in writ petition no. 34375 of 2004 by this Hon’ble court.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. - 16

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 5498 of 2017

Applicant :- Chandra Shekhar
Opposite Party :- Shri R.P. Singh Secy. Basic Education & 3 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Yogesh Kumar Saxena

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Heard the learned counsel for the applicant.
It is alleged that order passed by the Writ Court on 31.8.2004 in Writ Petition No.34375 of 1996 has not been complied with, despite service of it.
From a perusal of the record, a prima facie case for contempt is made out.
Issue notice to opposite parties, returnable within a month.
The counter affidavit may be filed within the aforesaid period or else charges may be framed after summoning the noticee.
However, one more opportunity is granted to the opposite parties to comply with the order within a month. In case by the next date fixed the directions of the Writ Court are not complied with and an affidavit to that effect, including reasons for delay occasioned in complying the order within time is not filed, the opposite parties shall remain present before this Court on the date fixed.
The office may send a copy of this order along with the notice.
List on the date mentioned in the notice.
Order Date :- 28.11.2017
3. That the opposite party no. 2 has filed false affidavits, takrn fravolous defence and filed short affidavit in misconceived notion in defience of their own authorities through Additional Advocate General,wherein counsel for the applicant petitioner was not permited to conduct the argument as to place correct facts.
4. That the opposite party no. 2 has filed false affidavits, takrn fravolous defence and filed short affidavit in misconceived notion in defience of their own authorities earlier also in filing the special appeal no. 140 of 2005, in as much as, that the same was filed intentional and deliberate defience committed by the opposite paty no. 2 in filing the special appeal no. 140 of 2005 seeking minimum wages to the petitioner which was affirmed upto the apex court.
5. That the opposite party no. 2 has filed false affidavits, takrn fravolous defence and filed short affidavit in misconceived notion in defience of their own authorities while filing his affidavit in earlier contempt petition no. 5078 of 2013 during pendency of special appeal no. 140 of 2005 filed by contemnors as the orders were passed to this effect :-
Hon’ble Yatindra Singh ,J
Hon’ble Dinesh Gupta, J
On the request of learned counsel for the appellants, list this case after two weaks. In the meantime, a supplementary affidavit may be filed indicating therein the position of other simlarily situated employees, namely, “Part Time Safai Karmachari” with the Basic shiksha Parishad.
Order dated 17.11.2011
6. That the petitioner is filing the copy of Govt. order dated 20.2.1982, 24. 8. 1995 , 30. 1. 1996 having the list of two catogory of employment under minimum wages act, 1948 in application to utter pradesh as substituted vide UP act, no. 20 of 1960. It is submitted that paying capacity can not be ground for non payment of minimum wages. The monthly pay of an employee is his property and he can not be deprived of it except by due process of law. It is well settled law that the minimum wages of the safai karmchari that they work on part time basis. There is provision of 10 time penality for short payment than minimum wages. There has been judgement for enforcement of 5 time compensation, in case the wages are less than the prescribed minimum wages.
7. That by the orderdated 30.1.1996 passed by the secretary Up Basic shiksha parishad, it was made clear that for rurer areas the appointment of part time safai karmchari shall be done by dupty inspector of schools till the order of their absorption is not passed they will get fixed salary varied from rs. 10, 30 and 120 at that time.
8. That during pendency of special appeal no. 140 of 2005 filed by contemnors, the orders were passed to by the division bench.
On the request of learned counsel for the appellants, list this case after two weaks. In the meantime, a supplementary affidavit may be filed indicating therein the position of other simlarily situated employees, namely, “Part Time Safai Karmachari” with the Basic shiksha Parishad.
Order dated 17.11.2011
Hon’ble Rakesh Tiwari ,J
Hon’ble Dinesh Gupta , J
Heard learned counsels for the parties.
Counsel for appellants will also provide notification under the minimum wages act placing part time of worker and the other similarily situated employees as directed by this court vide order dated 17.11.2011.
List premptorily in the next cause list for further hearing.
Order dated 2.2.2012
9. That during pendency of special appeal no. 140 of 2005 filed by contemnors, the orders were passed to by the division bench.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. - 36
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 140 of 2005
Petitioner :- Basic Shiksha Parishad & Another
Respondent :- Chandra Shekhar & Another
Petitioner Counsel :- K. Shahi
Respondent Counsel :- Y.K. Saxena
Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari,J.
Hon'ble Dinesh Gupta,J.
Sri K.Shahi, learned counsel for the appellant has filed a supplementary affidavit after service upon Sri Y. K. Saxena in court today. Sri Y. K. Saxena does not propose to file any supplementary counter affidavit as Sri K.Shahi has appended a government order dated 20.08.2007 which has already been appended by Sri Y.K.Saxena with his application.
The compilation of the judgments has also been provided by Sri Y.K.Saxena in support of his case.
Sri K.Shahi submits that an intervener application has been moved by 9 persons who were neither parties in the writ petition nor are parties in the present appeal. He prays for and is allowed three weeks' time for filing objections, if any. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within two weeks thereafter.
Sri Y.K.Saxena submits that he has no objection for granting time to file objections in the intervener application, but has strong objection to the fact that the respondent no.1 has not been paid salary even of a meagre amount of Rs.450/- per month since February, 2011 i.e for last 11 months on the ground that the government does not have any fund. Standing Counsel submits that salary of the petitioner could not be paid as Government does not have any money in its contingency fund as its coffers are empty.� Non payment of salary by the Government to one of its employees is shameful and it is deprecated. The Government is paying salary to all its other employees from its fund but does not have Rs.450/- to pay to a poor employee for last 11 months. This is not only disgusting but is also not acceptable. In the circumstances, it is directed that either the salary due to respondent no.1 be paid within 15 days from today or in case of failure to do so, appellants no.1 and 2 both shall be personally present in court on 23.03.2012.
List on 23.03.2012.
Order Date :- 14.2.2012
10. That the work of these employees was to provide drinking water to students, to take them to toilet and to provide assistence to the students in sending to their home as they were call jamadar cum watch man cum on the maximum salary of rs. 30 per month and they shall remain present before opening the school and after closer for doing safai cleanliness of premises and shall performed night watch manship for protection of the property of the school in rurer are as ban on fresh employment was imposed by the government. Sanjit Roy versus State of Rajastan 1983 (1) SCC 525 (MEANING AND EFFECT OF ARTICLE 23 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. IN RE PEOPLE UNION FOR DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AIR 1982SC 1473)
11. That as per the observation made by this Hon’ble Court , the application filed for the protection by intervenor seeking impleadment for availing minimum wages in the grade of Rs. 750 to Rs. 1440/- with revised pay scale from the date of the engagement to the similarily placed individual as the petitioners.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

Court No. - 40
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 5078 of 2013
Applicant :- Chandra Shekhar And 13 Others
Opposite Party :- Sri Sanjay Sinha, Basic Shiksha Parishad, And 2 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Yogesh Kumar Saxena
Hon'ble Krishna Murari,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants.
Learned counsel for the applicants is permitted to carry out necessary correction in the prayer clause of the application.
Issue notice to opposite parties within a week, who may file counter affidavit. Office shall issue notices returnable within six weeks.
List after service of notice on the opposite parties.
Order Date :- 22.10.2013

12. That the jurisdiction of contempt is for punishing the contemnors is an additional and independent jurisdiction. There is no place for diversification. It has no jurisdiction for relegating the matter. There is no power vested to the Hon’ble court for dilluting the criminal mens rea. The Hon’ble court is not empowered by adopting the different standards with official wilful flauting the ratio of the judgement. The complience of the judgement is also for redressal of grieviences based after final adjudication of the process. The contemnors are neither despotic monarch having an abuse of discreation in a calculated matter. The contempt juririsdiction is neither having soverienity nor authority may be enshrined above the rule of law, who ever he might be the individual. Wetset Engineers and Another Versus Vikas Auto Industries and others (2015) 10 S.C.C 609).
13. That despite the notice were issued to contemnor opposite party no. 1, neither any counter affidavit has been filed nor complience of the judgement has been made by any one of opposite parties.
14. That there is no place for diversification. It has no jurisdiction for relegating the matter. There is no power vested to the Hon’ble court for dilluting the criminal mens rea. The Hon’ble court is not empowered by adopting the different standards with official wilful flauting the ratio of the judgement. The complience of the judgement is also for redressal of grieviences based after final adjudication of the process. The contemnors are neither despotic monarch having an abuse of discreation in a calculated matter.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. - 59
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 5498 of 2017
Applicant :- Chandra Shekhar
Opposite Party :- Shri R.P. Singh Secy. Basic Education & 3 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Yogesh Kumar Saxena
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, the learned Additional Advocate General, who has appeared for the opposite party Nos. 2, 3 and 4.
Sri Chaturvedi has, referring to the Affidavits filed today, submitted that the special appeal taken against the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge came to be dismissed for want of prosecution due to inadvertence. He has referred to the fact that an application for recall and restoration is sought to be moved. The Court, more fundamentally, notes the reference made in paragraph -8 of the Affidavit filed by the opposite party No. 2 in which he has alluded to certain decisions rendered in special appeals, which according to him, run counter to the decision rendered by the learned Single Judge. In light of the stand so taken, the ends of justice would merit the respondents being granted some liberty to pursue their proposed application.
Accordingly, list this contempt application again on 13 February 2018. The opposite parties shall file their Affidavits in these proceedings apprising the Court of the position with respect to implementation of the decision rendered by the learned Single Judge and/or orders that may be passed in the special appeal which has come to be dismissed for default.
Subject to the filing of the said Affidavits, the presence of the opposite parties is dispensed with at this stage.
Order Date :- 12.1.2018

15. That it is in the interest of justice that notice of committing contempt be issued to the opposite parties requiring them to be personally present and thereafter punish them for non compliance of and willfully disobeying of judgement dated 31. 8.. 2004 passed in writ petition no. 34375 of 2004 passed by this Hon’ble court.
I, the deponent above named, do hereby verify that the contents of para nos. of this affidavit are true to my personal knowledge and those the contents of para nos., of this affidavit are based on perusal of records and those the contents of para nos. of this affidavit are based on information received and those the contents of para nos. of this affidavit are based on legal advise, which all I believe to be true that no part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed in it. So help me God.
(Deponent)
I, Yogesh Kumar Saxena, Advocate, High Court Allahabad, do hereby
verify that the person making this affidavit and alleging himself to be
the deponent is known to me from perusal of papers produced before me by him in this case.
(YOGESH KUMAR SAXENA)AdvocateA/Y-0061/2012
Solemnly affirmed before me on this th day of feb , 2018 at about a.m./p.m. by the deponent, who has been identified by the aforesaid person.
I have satisfied myself by examining the deponent that he understands the contents of this affidavit, which have been read over and explained to him.
OATH COMMISSIONER.