Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. -…
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 4
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 234 of 2020
Applicant :- Chhatradhari Yadav And 6 Others Opposite Party :- Bhupendra Narayan Singh, Basic Shiksha Adhikari And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Anurag Shukla
Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
The applicants are before this Court for a direction to initiate contempt proceeding against the opposite party for wilful disobedience of the judgement and order dated 13.08.2019 passed in Writ A No.12665 of 2019. The order is reproduced hereinbelow :-
"Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The writ petition is being decided, on consent, without calling for counter affidavit.
Petitioners, 7 in number, retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2016 from the post of Assistant Teachers/Head Masters from various Junior Basic Schools/Senior Basic Schools.
By means of the instant petition, petitioners seek the following reliefs:
"i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Gorakhpur (respondent no. 5) to extend the benefit of judgment and order dated 19.08.2017 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 33360 of 2017 (Angad Yadav and 7 others Vs. State of U.P. and others) in favour of the petitioners.
ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Gorakhpur (respondent no. 5) to release the arrears of salary in favour of the petitioners for the period 1st July, 2015 up till October, 2015 within a specified period as may be directed by this Hon'ble Court.
iii) ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Gorakhpur (respondent no. 5) to take immediate step for grant of consequential benefit viz. grant of annual increment due in July, 2015; benefit of 7th Pay Commission due in January, 2016 and Bonus for the year 2015-16 within a specified period as may be directed by this Hon'ble Court."
This Court on 19th August, 2017 in an identical writ petition, being Writ-A No. 33360 of 2017 (Angad Yadav and others v. State of U.P. and others), which was filed by the similarly placed persons challenging the same impugned order and seeking similar and identical relief, has passed a detailed judgment and order allowing the writ petition. The operative portion of the judgment reads as under:
"Applying these principles on the facts of the present case, I find that the petitioners in terms of the change of the academic session, when admittedly their dates of superannuation fall during the academic session i.e. 01st April, 2015 to 31st March, 2016 as their dates of birth are 01.07.1953, 01.06.1953, 01.05.1953, 03.05.1953, 01.07.1953, 01.07.1953, 01.07.1953 and 15.05.1953 respectively, they were entitled for the sessional benefit and to continue upto 31st March, 2016. There was no fault on their part as they were not allowed to work after 30th
June, 2015. A specific direction was issued not to allow them to continue beyond 30th June, 2015. The said direction, as mentioned above, was manifestly erroneous and contrary to the well settled practice and the relevant Rules to give the session benefit to such teachers whose date of superannuation falls during the academic session. The State Government has issued a Government Order dated 08th October, 2015 rectifying the said mistake, hence the Government Order dated 02nd May, 2017 that the teachers who were allowed to continue after the judgment of Ramesh Chandra Tiwari (supra) and the Government Order dated 08th October, 2015, will not be paid salary from 30th June, 2015 till their rejoining is arbitrary and unreasonable. When the Government itself had issued an order dated 08th October, 2015, there was no justification to issue the impugned order dated 02nd May, 2017, which is contrary to the law laid down by this Court in Ramesh Chandra Tiwari (supra). As noted above, the Division Bench has declared the Government Order dated 15th June, 2015 illegal.
Regard may be had to the fact that on the basis of the said order, the petitioners were denied sessional benefits. Once the said order was set aside, the petitioners became entitled to continue. The respondents have also allowed the petitioners to rejoin their position.
Therefore, in the said background and on a careful consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that the impugned Government Order dated 02nd May, 2017 has to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. The petitioners are entitled for their salary from 30th June, 2015 till the date of their rejoining. Ordered accordingly.
Thus, the writ petition stands allowed."
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 3 and Sri Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 4 to 6. They are agreed that the facts of the present petition are identical to that of Angad Yadav (supra) and this writ petition may also be decided in the same terms.
In view of the above, the present writ petition is also allowed in the same terms as in Angad Yadav (supra). "
Today when the matter is taken up, it is informed by learned counsel for the applicant that the order passed by the writ court has already been complied with, therefore, no cause of action remained survive and prays that the present application be dismissed.
In view of the same, the present contempt application is dismissed.
Order Date :- 6.8.2021 Pramod Tripathi
Chhatradhari Yadav and 6 Others
Bhupendra Narayan Singh
Prakash Padia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
