Allahabad High Court
AJAY KUMARversusSHRI AKHILESH KUMAR CHAURASIA, DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (ESTABLISHMENT), POLICE HEADQUART
- Decided
- Bench
- VIKAS BUDHWAR
Holding
The contempt application was consigned to the record as the order of the writ court had been substantially complied with.
Summary
The petitioner, Ajay Kumar, filed a contempt application alleging that the Deputy Inspector General of Police willfully defied the High Court's order dated 30 April 2026, which directed the authorities to count his training period for calculating service and grant an additional increment. The Court noted that the respondent had produced instructions dated 30 September 2026 showing a credit of Rs.2,93,707 in the petitioner’s bank account, indicating substantial compliance with the earlier writ. The Court held that because the order was essentially complied with, the contempt application could not proceed and was consigned to the record, allowing the petitioner to still question the quantum of the amount. No further punitive measures were imposed. The matter was concluded with the instructions being served on the petitioner’s counsel and marked as Appendix ‘A’.
Issues considered
- Whether the respondent authorities willfully defied the High Court's order dated 30‑04‑2026 regarding counting of training period for service calculation
- Whether the compliance shown by the respondent suffices to defeat the contempt application
Subjects
- contempt
- willful defiance
- mandamus
- service period
- training period
- additional increment
- high court
- compliance
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 6526 of 2026
Ajay Kumar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
Shri Akhilesh Kumar Chaurasia, Deputy Inspector
General Of Police (Establishment), Police
Headquarter And Another .....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Abhishek Mishra, Prakhar Pandey
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 30.04.2026 passed in Writ-A No. 6290 of 2026,
order whereof is quoted herein under:-
"1. The petitioner has preferred present writ petition inter-alia with the following
prayer :-
" (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and
directing the respondent authorities to take into the consideration with respect to the
service period spent by the petitioner, while undergoing training after his appointment
and before appointed as Constable for calculating 19 years of service for grant of one
additional increment/selection grade in light of the G.O. dated 02.12.2000 issued by
the State Government."2. It is argued by Sri Abhishek Mishra, learned counsel for the
petitioners that in identical facts and circumstances of the case an order dated
29.11.2022 was passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ A No.10547 of
2019 (Charan Singh and 20 others Vs. State of U.P. And 5 others). The order dated
29.11.2022 reads as follows :-
"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
CAPL No. 6526 of 2026
2
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."
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 taking into account the training
period for the purposes of grant of such benefit."
3. It is admitted between the parties that the controversy involved in the present
petition is identical as in the case of Charan Singh (supra) hence petitioners are also
entitled for the same relief.
4. 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 taking into
account the training period for the purposes of grant of such benefit."
2. Today, instructions have been produced dated 30.09.2026 annexing
therewith the order dated 24.09.2026 deciding the claim of the applicant, and
on page, it is shown that an amount of Rs.2,93,707.00 stands credited in the
bank account of the applicant.
3. Since the order of the Writ-Court has been substantially complied with,
the contempt application is consigned to record, leaving it open for the
applicant to question the quantum of same.
4. Let a copy of the instructions be served upon the counsel for the applicant.
5. Instructions filed today are taken on record and marked as Appendix 'A'.
October 1, 2026
N.S.Rathour
(Vikas Budhwar,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…