Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:1568 Court No. - 17 Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 925 of 2019 Applicant :- Chandrabhan Opposite Party :- V.P.Singh Basic Shiksha Adhikari Barabanki. Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Roshan Dubey,Amit Kant Saxena Counsel for Opposite Party :- Uday Veer Singh Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J. 1. The present contempt application has been preferred for non-compliance of the judgment and order dated 10.09.2018 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 25665 (S/S) of 2018 (Chandrabhan versus State of U.P and others). The relevant extract of the judgment is quoted hereinbelow:- "Therefore, the writ petition is finally disposed of with the direction to the respondent No.4 to consider the claim of the petitioner and to pass appropriate reasoned speaking order on the representation of the petitioner dated 23.8.2018 in the light of the Full Bench judgment of this Court passed in the case of Shiv Kumar Dubey Vs. State of U.P. and others within a period of 6 weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. " 2. Dr. Uday Veer Singh, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that a compliance afÏdavit has been filed on 16.02.2024, enclosing the copy of the order dated 29.03.2019, deciding the representation of the applicant by the answering respondent and rejected the same stating that the matter for relaxation was already forwarded to the State Government for taking decision as per Rule 5 of the Dying in Harness Rules, in the year 2013 itself, but the State Government has refused to grant relaxation in favour of the applicant by its order dated 12.07.2013. 3. It is further submitted that the said order was never ever challenged by the applicant and he filed the writ petition in the year 2018, perhaps, without disclosing the said fact. 4. It is further submitted that though the afÏdavit of compliance was filed in February, 2024, but till date, the applicant has not filed any objection to the same. 5. It is further submitted that the benefit of the Full Bench decision in the case of Shiv Kumar Dubey versus State of U.P and others was granted to the applicant. The relevant extract of the Full Bench decision is quoted hereinbelow:- "30. As regards the judgment of the Division Bench in Vivek Yadav (supra), the first part of the judgment of the Division Bench in Vivek Yadav's case holds in paragraph 4 that since Rule 5 contemplates an application by a competent person, in a case where the applicant is a minor, it will not be possible for a minor to make an application during the period of his minority. Therefore, considering the object of the Rules, it was held that the proviso to Rule 5 must normally be exercised in such cases. This observation, with respect, requiring that the proviso to Rule 5 must normally be exercised for the purpose of dealing with a case in a just and equitable manner would not be reflective of the correct position in law. The subsequent decision in Subhash Yadav (supra) only holds that the Government cannot dismiss an application which has been moved after five years blindfolded but has to apply its mind rationally to all the facts and circumstances of the case. In this regard, we clarify that the second proviso to Rule 5 requires an applicant, who invokes the power of dispensation or relaxation under the first proviso of the time limit of five years, to make out a case of undue hardship by elucidating, in writing, with necessary documentary evidence and proof, the reasons and justification for the delay. The Government may, in an appropriate case, when it is satisfied on the basis of the material that a case of undue hardship is made out, exercise the power which is conferred upon it under the first proviso to Rule 5 of the Rules but this power has to be exercised where a demonstrated case of undue hardship is made out to the satisfaction of the State Government. We answer the reference accordingly in the aforesaid terms." 6. It is further submitted that from the perusal of the application preferred by the applicant, it is apparent that nothing has been disclosed as directed by the Full Bench for the purpose of considering the candidature for appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules, relating to the hardship and justification for the delay. 7. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that for all practical purposes, the present contempt application has rendered infructuous and now nothing remains to be adjudicated in the present contempt application and the same may be dismissed, but liberty may be given to the applicant to challenge the order dated 12.07.2013 and 29.03.2019 by filing a writ petition. 8. As such, the present contempt application is dismissed with liberty to the applicant to avail the remedy as may be permissible under the law and no permission of this Court is required for the same. 9. Notice if, any, stands discharged. Order Date :- 9.1.2025 DiVYa Digitally signed by :- DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench