Allahabad High Court
NATTHU SINGHversusSHRI P.C. MEENA, DIRECTOR GENERAL / INSPECTOR GENERAL PRISON ADMINISTRATION & REFORMS
- Decided
- Bench
- VIKAS BUDHWAR
Holding
The Court held that the petitioner is granted liberty to challenge the rejection order and the contempt application is consigned to the record.
Summary
Natthu Singh filed a contempt application alleging that the Director General/Inspector General of Prison Administration willfully defied the High Court's order dated 06.04.2026 in Writ‑A No.4752 of 2026, which required the petitioner to submit a fresh representation within two weeks and the respondent to decide within four weeks. The respondent filed a compliance affidavit stating that the petitioner's claim for provisional pension was rejected on 20.07.2026. The petitioner sought liberty to challenge this rejection. The Court granted the prayed liberty and consigned the contempt application to the record, without further adjudicating the contempt claim.
Issues considered
- Whether the respondent's rejection of the petitioner's provisional pension claim amounts to willful defiance of the Court's order and thus contempt.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to liberty to challenge the rejection order dated 20.07.2026.
Subjects
- contempt
- writ petition
- provisional pension
- prison administration
- liberty to challenge
- compliance affidavit
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 4542 of 2026
Natthu Singh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
Shri P.C. Meena, Director General / Inspector
General Prison Administration & Reforms .....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dhananjay Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :
Court No. - 53
HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.
1. The present contempt application has been preferred alleging willful
defiance of the order dated 06.04.2026 passed in Writ-A No. 4752 of 2026,
order whereof is quoted hereunder:-
"1. The order dated 10.07.2024 passed by respondent no.3-Deputy Inspector General
Prison Administration & Reforms U.P. at Lucknow by which the payment of
provisional pension of the petitioner has been stayed with immediate effect is under
challenge in the present writ petition.
2. It is argued by counsel for the petitioner that aforesaid order was passed due to
pendency of a criminal case against him. It is further argued that in Criminal Appeal
No.2921 of 2024 filed by the present writ petitioner, he has been bailed out vide order
dated 15.01.2025 passed by this Court on the personal bond of Rs.50,000/-. In this
view of the matter it is argued that at least petitioner is entitled for the interim
pension. He placed reliance upon a judgement and order dated 16.08.2023 passed in
Writ A No.11761 of 2023 (Manoj Kumar Katiyar Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others).
3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being
disposed of at the admission stage itself.
4. In the facts and circumstances, petitioner is permitted to submit a fresh
representation ventilating all his grievances before the respondent no.2-Director
General/Inspector General Prison Administration & Reforms U.P. at Lucknow
annexing all the relevant papers and documents as has been relied by him in the
present writ petition along-with certified copy of this order within a period of two
weeks from today. If such a representation is made, the respondent no.2 is directed to
look into the entire aspect of the matter and pass appropriate order in accordance
with law within a further period of four weeks.
5. With the aforesaid observations, present writ petition is disposed of finally.
6. Since the writ petition has been decided on an exparte version without seeking any
response from the respondents, thus passing of the order today may not be construed
CAPL No. 4542 of 2026
2
to an expression that this Court has gone into the merits of the matter and the second
respondent shall accord independent consideration strictly in accordance with law
and the mandate of law holding the field."
2. Today compliance affidavit has been filed by Sri R.S. Umrao, learned
Standing Counsel, according to which the claim of the applicant has been
rejected on 20.07.2026. Copy of the same be served upon learned counsel
for the applicant.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant prays for liberty to challenge the
rejection order dated 20.07.2026.
4. Liberty as prayed is granted.
5. With the aforesaid liberty, the present application stands consigned to
record.
September 23, 2026
N.S.Rathour
(Vikas Budhwar,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…