Allahabad High Court
PUTTI LALversusSHRI SANJAY PRASAD AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- VIKAS BUDHWAR
Holding
The contempt application is consigned to the record as there is substantial compliance with the earlier order.
Summary
The applicant, Putti Lal, filed a contempt application alleging that the respondents, Shri Sanjay Prasad and another, willfully defied the High Court's order dated 20‑11‑2025 in Writ‑A No. 17493 of 2025, which required the training period of police constables to be counted for promotional pay scale and additional increment. The earlier order stemmed from a series of judgments, notably Ghanshyam Tiwari & others v. State of U.P. (Writ Petition No. 44330 of 2012) and a 2006 writ petition (Writ Petition No. 24910 of 2006) directing the respondents to treat the training period as service. On 11‑09‑2026 the Court listed the matter as fresh and recorded instructions, and on 13‑07‑2026 the respondents indicated that the applicant’s claim had been decided. The Court observed that substantial compliance with its earlier direction had been achieved. Consequently, the contempt application was consigned to the record, allowing the applicant to raise any further questions in appropriate proceedings.
Issues considered
- Whether the respondents willfully defied the High Court's order dated 20‑11‑2025 regarding counting of training period for promotional pay scale.
- Whether the compliance shown by the respondents suffices to defeat the contempt application.
Subjects
- contempt
- willful defiance
- substantial compliance
- training period
- promotional pay scale
- police constable
- additional increment
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 6267 of 2026
Putti Lal
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
Shri Sanjay Prasad And Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Jaswant Rai
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 20.11.2025 passed in Writ-A No. 17493 of 2025,
order whereof is quoted hereinunder.-
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel
for the State-respondents.
Controversy raised in the present petition has already been adjudicated
by this Court in Writ Petition No. 44330 of 2012 (Ghanshyam Tiwari &
others vs. State of U.P. & others) against which a special appeal and
S.L.P. has already been rejected. Order dated 07.09.2012 passed in
aforesaid writ petition reads as under :-
"The sole grievance raised of the petitioners in the present petition is as
to whether the period spent on training prior to appointment as a
Constable in the Police Department can be counted for granting them
promotional pay scale.
I have heard Shri Rajesh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners.
This issue was examined by this Court in Writ Petition No. 24910 of 2006
and the petition was allowed with the following observations:-
"Thus, for the reasons stated above, the respondents are not justified in
not counting the period spent in training for the purposes of calculating
24 years of service for grant of promotional pay scale to the petitioners.
The writ petition is allowed with a direction to the respondents to count
the training period of the petitioners for the purposes of granting second
promotional pay scale."
CAPL No. 6267 of 2026
2
Thus, for the reasons stated in the judgment and order dated 8th April,
2009 passed in the aforesaid Writ Petition No. 24910 of 2006, this
petition deserves to be allowed and is allowed. The respondents shall
count the training period of the petitioners for the purposes of granting
additional increment."
Following the order passed in the aforesaid matter, this writ petition is
also disposed of with the direction that the petitioners' claim for grant of
Additional increment shall be considered within a period of three months
after treating training period for the purposes of grant of such benefit."
2. This Court on 11.09.2026 proceeded to pass the following orders.-
"1. On the request of Sri Brijesh Kumar, learned Standing Counsel, list
the matter as fresh on 18.09.2026.
2. Instructions filed today is taken on record and marked as Appendix-
A."
3. Today, instructions have been produced, according to which, the claim of
the applicant has been decided on 13.07.2026. A copy of the same be served
upon the learned counsel for the applicant.
4. Since there has been substantial compliance, the present contempt
application is consigned to record leaving it open to the applicant to
question the same before appropriate proceedings.
5. Instructions filed today are taken on record and marked as Appendix 'B'.
(Vikas Budhwar,J.)
September 18, 2026
Rajesh
Digitally signed by :-
RAJESH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…