Dismissed

Satyendra Singh v. Sangeeta Singh Basic Shiksha Adhikari Unnao and Another

Allahabad HC18 Jul 2025CAPL/1703/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt application alleging defiance of a writ court order directing payment of salary to an assistant teacher. Compliance affidavits were filed and payment was ordered on the hearing date; the contempt court dismissed the application as infructuous, leaving recall open if payment fails.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed as infructuous after affidavits of compliance and undertaking to credit salary within one week; liberty to file recall application if payment is not made.

Satyendra Singh Vs Sangeeta Singh Basic Shiksha Adhikari… — Contempt of Court | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:41373

¶2

Court No. - 17

¶3

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 1703 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Satyendra Singh

¶5

Opposite Party :- Sangeeta Singh Basic Shiksha Adhikari Unnao And Another

¶6

Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Dixit,Devam Shukla,Mukul Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Krishna Madhav Shukla

¶7

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant.

¶9

On 27.05.2025, following order was passed.

¶10

"1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the opposite parties.

¶11

The present application has been filed with the prayer to summon and punish the opposite parties for wilful and deliberate defiance of the order dated 23.04.2025 passed by the Writ Court in Writ A No.4170/2025; Satyendra Singh Vs. State of UP and Ors.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the grievance of the applicant was not being considered by the opposite parties, therefore, he filed Writ Petition (S/S) No.5959/2015; Satyendra Singh Vs. State of UP and Anr. which was allowed on 06.03.2020. Thereafter, the said order was challenged in Special Appeal No.162/2020 by a person who was claiming the appointment on the post of applicant and the same was dismissed on 08.02.2023. But the order passed by Writ Court was not being complied with by the opposite parties, therefore, Contempt Application (Civil) No.1732 of 2023 was preferred by the applicant. On 27.05.2024, during the hearing of aforesaid contempt application, the arbitrary action of the opposite parties was also recorded in the order. Thereafter, the appointment order was given to the applicant and on the basis of said appointment order, aforesaid contempt application was dismissed on 29.05.2024.

¶13

Order dated 29.05.2024 passed in Contempt Application (Civil) No.1732/2022 is as under:

¶14

"1. Heard.

¶15

Photo copy of the joining report of the applicant dated 28.5.2024 issued by the Principal of Institute in question provided by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶16

Sri Vijay Dixit, learned counsel for the applicant submits that order of the writ court has been complied with as applicant has been allowed to join by the Committee of Management.

¶17

In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, present contempt application is dismissed as infructuous. "

¶18

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the

¶19

approval of appointment was given by the District Basic Education Officer, Unnao and the letter was also placed before the Contempt Court. As a result, the contempt application was withdrawn vide order dated 15.01.2025 but after the withdrawal of the contempt application, the committee cancelled the appointment order dated 24.05.2024. Thereafter, the aforesaid order was challenged in Writ A No.2083/2025, which was disposed of on 28.02.2025.

¶20

Order dated 28.02.2025 passed by the Writ Court in Writ A No.2083 of 2025 is as under:

¶21

"1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1, Shri Abeer Mishra holding brief of Shri Abhinav and Shri K.M. Shukla, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3.

¶22

With the consent of the parties, the matter is being decided finally.

¶23

At the very outset, Shri Abeer Mishra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 states that the order impugned dated 15.01.2025 that had been passed by the B.S.A., a copy of which is Annexure-2 to the petition, has been withdrawn vide order dated 27.02.2025, thus, the writ petition has been rendered infructuous.

¶24

Considering the aforesaid as well as the fact that the other impugned order dated 23.01.2025, which has been passed by the respondent No.3, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, is based on the order dated 15.01.2025, which already stands withdrawn, consequently the order dated 23.01.2025, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, is quashed. Consequences to follow.

¶25

The writ petition is disposed of leaving it open to the petitioner to challenge the order dated 27.01.2025, in case he is aggrieved by the same. It would be open for the petitioner to challenge any other order with which he is affected.

¶26

So far as the prayer of the petitioner for payment of salary from 28.05.2024 and to continue to pay the same, it would be open for the petitioner to submit a comprehensive representation in this regard to Basic Shiksha Adhikari i.e. respondent No.2 within a period of 2 weeks from today. In case such a representation is made, the concerned authority shall decide the same within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the said representation. "

¶27

Thereafter, the District Basic Education Officer, Unnao again passed an order dated 02.04.2025, by which, the order dated 27.02.2025 was again withdrawn without taking any leave from the Writ court. Thereafter, the applicant again preferred Writ A No.4170/2025 against order dated 02.04.2025, in the said case, interim order was passed on 16.04.2025 by staying the operation of order dated 02.04.2025 and thereafter, aforesaid petition was allowed on 23.04.2025.

¶28

Operative portion of order dated 23.04.2025 passed in Writ A No.4170/2025 is as under:

¶29

¶30

23.01.2025 had lost its efficacy. The aforesaid order dated 23.01.2025 has been set aside/ quashed by this Court vide order dated 28.02.2025 (supra), the effect thereof would be that the impugned resolution dated 18.12.2024 would be treated as non est in the eyes of law.

¶31

Therefore, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I find that the impugned order dated 02.04.2025 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Unnao is patently illegal, arbitrary and uncalled for.

¶32

Hence, the impugned order dated 02.04.2025 (Annexure No.1), passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Unnao and the impugned resolution dated 18.12.2024 (Annexure No.2) passed by the opposite party No.3 i.e. Committee of Management are hereby set aside/ quashed. The petitioner shall be paid his salary with effect from 28.05.2024 and he shall also be paid his regular salary as and when the same falls due.

¶33

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.

¶34

No order as to cost. "

¶35

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that order dated 23.04.2025 was passed in presence of the counsel for District Basic Education Officer, Unnao, even then, it was communicated to the opposite parties on 26.04.2025, thereafter, the opposite party no.1 passed an order dated 02.05.2025 addressing to the Manager, Committee of Management of college in question fixing the date 30.05.2025 at 4:00 PM for hearing on the representation of the applicant in compliance of the direction of Writ Court dated 23.04.2025 passed in Writ A No.4170/2025. He also submits that the Committee of Management also preferred Special Appeal No.174/2025 against the order dated 23.04.2025 which was dismissed on 20.05.2025.

¶36

Operative portion of order 20.05.2025 passed in Special Appeal No.174/2025 is as under:

¶37

"11. Since the impugned order dated 15.01.2025 whereby the resolution of the Committee of Management dated 18.12.2024 was approved, had been withdrawn vide order dated 27.02.2025, therefore, the consequential impugner order dated 23.01.2025 had lost its efficacy. The aforesaid order dated 23.01.2025 has been set aside/ quashed by this Court vide order dated 28.02.2025 (supra), the effect thereof would be that the impugned resolution dated 18.12.2024 would be treated as non est in the eyes of law.

¶38

Therefore, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I find that the impugned order dated 02.04.2025 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Unnao is patently illegal, arbitrary and uncalled for.

¶39

Hence, the impugned order dated 02.04.2025 (Annexure No.1), passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Unnao and the impugned resolution dated 18.12.2024 (Annexure No.2) passed by the opposite party No.3 i.e. Committee of Management are hereby set aside/ quashed. The petitioner shall be paid his salary with effect from 28.05.2024 and he shall also be paid his regular salary as and when the same falls due."

¶40

From the above, it would reveal that the grounds which are now sought to be agitated by the appellant have already been considered in several tiers of litigation. Admittedly the

¶41

appellants never assailed the earlier order, and rather challenge was at the behest of Surendra Singh. Once the matter finally rested with the order passed by the Apex Court and even though the respondent was permitted to join, then indirectly the same issue has been racked up while considering the issue regarding payment of salary to the respondent. It is too well settled, that what cannot be done directly cannot done indirectly either.

¶42

Apparently in the instant case, this is what has happened that is to say, that first, the said issue regarding lack of qualification of the respondent was raised at the behest of Surendra Singh. Later, the District Basic Education Officer in garb of verifying the documents for payment of salary to the petitioner has passed the impugned order which has been taken note of by the learned Single Judge and turning it down has allowed the petition. Now, the appellants have come up in this Special Appeal, though, the learned counsel for the appellants could not dispute the fact that the order passed by the writ court dated 06.03.2020 was never challenged, hence, at this stage, the same cannot be permitted at the behest of the present appellants.

¶43

Accordingly, the special appeal is devoid of merits and is dismissed. Costs are made easy. "

¶44

It is evident from the aforesaid orders that the repeated orders were placed before the Writ Court by the District Basic Education Officer, Unnao but after some time, without taking any leave from the Court, orders were withdrawn. It is also evident from the record that the order dated 23.04.2025 passed by Writ Court in Writ A No.4170 of 2025 was also considered by the Division Bench in Special Appeal No.174/2025 and the same is upheld but the aforesaid order of Writ Court has not been complied with.

¶45

Let notice be issued to the opposite parties within a week to show cause, as to why, they should not be punished for wilful disobedience of the directions of this Court, returnable within two weeks, failing which, the charges may be framed after summoning the contemnors.

¶46

Office is directed to send a copy of this order along with the notice.

¶47

List this case on 18.07.2025 as fresh.

¶48

On the next date, affidavit of compliance be filed, failing which, opposite parties shall appear in person before this Court."

¶49

Shri Mohit Jauhari, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent no. 1, while filing affidavit of compliance along with application for discharge of contempt notice, submits that the order has already been passed today, i.e., on 18.07.2025 for making payment in pursuance of the directions of writ Court. Respondent no. 1-Ms. Sangeeta Singh, District Basic Education Officer, Unnao, who is present before this Court, also states that the order would be complied with in letter and spirit and the amount would be credited in the account of the applicant within a period

¶50

of one week from today.

¶51

The aforesaid affidavit of compliance is taken on record. Affidavit of compliance filed by respondent no. 2 is also taken on record.

¶52

Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant, learned Standing Counsel and going through the order of the writ Court as well as contents of the affidavits of compliance, this Court is of the view that the present application has lost its efficacy and the same stands dismissed as infructuous.

¶53

However, it is always open to the applicant that, in case, the amount is not credited in his account, he may move recall application.

¶54

Order Date :- 18.7.2025 VKS

¶55

Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Satyendra Singh v. Sangeeta Singh Basic Shiksha Adhikari Unnao and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satyendra Singh v. Sangeeta Singh Basic Shiksha Adhikari Unnao and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kshetrapal Singh Vs Sri Akhilesh Pratap Singh, District Basic Education Officer Sitapur

Dheeraj Kumar Vs Neelam Chaudhary Executive Officer Class II Distt. Sitapur and Another

Mohd. Abbas Jafari Vs Sri Shubham Shukla Distt. Basic Education Officer, Balrampur

Vikash @ Vikash Verma Vs Chakresh Mishra, S.P. Sitapur

Manikant Singh Vs Shri P.V. Ramasastry, Director General Police /I.G. (Jail) U.P., Luckow

Dr. Akanksha Dikshit Vs Sri Kumar Prashant, Dir. Directorate of Social Welfare U.P. Lko.