Ashish Kumar vs Sunil Chaudhary Chief Conservator of Forest Deptt U.P. Lko. and Another

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 1159 of 2026

Ashish Kumar

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

Sunil Chaudhary Chief Conservator Of Forest Deptt U.P. Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Nand Kishore Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :

¶7

Court No. - 32

¶8

HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

¶9

The present contempt application has been preferred alleging noncompliance of the order dated 13.11.2025 passed in Writ-A No.13163 of 2025, Ashish Kumar vs. State of U.P. wherein following orders were passed:-

¶10

" 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for the opposite parties.

¶11

2. Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to authority concerned for grant of minimum of pay scale of a Class IV post in terms of the Government Order dated 24.09.2024 and judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Sabha Shankar Dube v. Divisional Forest Officer reported in 2019(12) SCC 297: AIR 2019 SC 220.

¶12

3. Since considering petitioner's grievance would entail factual aspects, liberty is granted to petitioner to file fresh representation before opposite party no.2 i.e. Chief Conservator of Forest Department, U.P., Lucknow who shall consider and decide the same, in light of the aforesaid judgment in case it is applicable, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of fresh representation along with a certified copy of this order.

¶13

4. With aforesaid direction(s), the petition is finally disposed of. "

¶14

This Court while entertaining the contempt petition on 31.03.2026, proceeded to pass the following orders:-

¶15

" 1. Heard.

¶16

2. Issue notice.

¶17

3. Steps need not to be taken.

¶18

4. The aforesaid is for the reason that the copies of this petition have been provided to

¶19

CAPL No. 1159 of 2026

¶20

2

¶21

the Standing Counsel and the same would be provided to the opposite parties, officers of the State of U.P., through the Office of Chief Standing Counsel.

¶22

5. List/put up this case on 24.04.2026 within top 30 cases, on which date the opposite parties/contemnors shall show cause as to why the contempt proceedings shall not be initiated against them for violating the order of this Court dated 13.11.2025 passed in Writ-A No.13163 of 2025.

¶23

6. The above mode/process has been adopted for the purposes of early disposal of the instant contempt application/petition. "

¶24

3. Thereafter, on 24.04.2026, the following orders were passed:-

¶25

" 1. Compliance affidavit filed by the learned State counsel in the Court today is taken on record.

¶26

2. Learned State counsel has submitted that the compliance affidavit has been filed enclosing therewith a copy of order dated 19.01.2026 passed by the opposite party No. 2/contemnor, whereby the contemnor has rejected the claim of the applicant (a casual employee) for minimum wages as his claim is not covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Sabha Shankar Dube vs. Divisional Forest Officer and others, AIR 2019 SC 220, as the applicant is an unskilled casual seasonal labour, not a temporary employee like Sabha Shankar Dube.

¶27

3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the applicant has disputed the submission made by the learned State counsel and raised objection against the compliance affidavit filed today. He further stated that the compliance affidavit filed by the opposite party No. 2 is nothing but a willful and intentional disobedience of the order of Writ Court, in issue.

¶28

4. At this stage, the learned State counsel prays for and is granted a week's time for filing further compliance affidavit.

¶29

5. The request aforesaid is acceded.

¶30

6. Accordingly, list/put up this case on 01.05.2026, on which date the opposite party No. 2/contemnor shall remain present before this Court. It is for the reason that in the case of Muttur the similar order was passed by the authority concerned and when this Court had passed the following order on 30.01.2026 in the case of Muttur the fresh order was passed, whereby minimum pay scale was provided to Muttur, as stated by Sri Nand Kishore, the learned counsel for the applicant, which has not been refuted by Sri Vinayak Saxena, the learned State counsel.

¶31

"1. The respondent has filed compliance affidavit, which is taken on record.

¶32

2. Learned State Counsel has submitted that the compliance affidavit has been filed enclosing therein the copy of the order dated 05.05.2025 deciding and rejecting the claim of the applicant (a casual employee) for minimum wages as his claim is not covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sabha Shankar Dube versus Divisional Forest Officer and others AIR 2019 Supreme Court 220, passed in Civil Appeal No. 10957-10963 of 2018, as the applicant is an unskilled casual seasonal labour, not a temporary employee like Sabha Shankar Dube.

¶33

CAPL No. 1159 of 2026

¶34

3

¶35

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the applicant has disputed the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel and raised objection against the compliance affidavit filed today.

¶36

4. Learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that the case of the applicants is squarely covered by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sabha Shankar Dube (supra) for the reason that in paragraph-10 of the said judgment temporary employee (daily wage employees, ad hoc appointees, employees appointed on casual basis, contractual employees and likewise) are entitled to the minimum of the regular pay scales. For convenience, paragraph-10 of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow :-

¶37

"The issue that was considered by this court in Jagjit Singh (AIR 2016 SC 5176) (supra) is whether temporary employees (daily wage employees, ad hoc appointees, employees appointed on casual basis, contractual employees and likewise) are entitled to the minimum of the regular pay scales on account of their performing the same duties which are discharged by those engaged on regular basis against the sanctioned posts. After considering several judgments including the judgments of this Court in Tilak Raj (AIR 2003 SC 2658) (supra) and Surjit Singh (2009 AIR SCW 6759 (Supra), this court held that temporary employees are entitled to draw wages at the minimum of the pay scales which are applicable to the regular employees holding the same post."

¶38

5. He further submits that compliance affidavit filed by the opposite party is nothing but a willful and intentional disobedience of the judgment and order passed in the writ petition.

¶39

6. At this stage, learned State Counsel prays for and is granted two weeks' time for filing further compliance affidavit failing which, the opposite party shall appear in person for the purposes of framing of charges.

¶40

7. List this case in the week commencing 16.02.2026." "

¶41

Today, a compliance affidavit has been filed annexing therewith order dated 29.04.2026 of the opposite party rejecting the claim of the applicant.

¶42

Though the learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the claim of the writ petitioner is similarly situated as of one Muttur and in the proceedings so initiated by him before this Court post passing of positive order and filing of the contempt petition, he was accorded benefits, but the applicant-writ petitioner has been side-tracked and the said fact was even noticed by the contempt-Court on 24.04.2026, then the order has been passed on 29.04.2026.

¶43

Learned Addl. Advocate General on the other hand submits that whatever might be the case of Muttur has also been considered in that regard.

¶44

CAPL No. 1159 of 2026

¶45

4

¶46

Be that as it may be, since the order of the writ-Court was for disposal of the representation in terms of judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sabha Shankar Dube v. Divisional Forest Officer reported in 2019(12) SCC 297 and the representation stands decided in contempt proceeding, the Court cannot go into the merits of the matter, as the remedy lies elsewhere. Thus the writ petition is consigned to record , leaving it open for the applicant to question the said order before the Writ-Court in that regard.

¶47

Personal presence of Mr. Prakhar Gupta, who claims to be posted as Divisional Forest Officer Ayodhya, who has been identified by Sri Anirudh Singh, learned Standing Counsel, who is present before this Court is exempted. The Bench Secretary shall get the endorsement/ signature of Sri Prakhar Gupta, in that regard.

¶48

May 1, 2026

¶49

N.S.Rathour

¶50

(Vikas Budhwar,J.)

¶51

Digitally signed by :- NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ashish Kumar v. Sunil Chaudhary Chief Conservator of Forest Deptt U.P. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashish Kumar v. Sunil Chaudhary Chief Conservator of Forest Deptt U.P. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt Rajbala vs Rajesh and Another

Vinay Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Gramya Vikas Lko. and 4 Others

Kashi and 2 Others vs Ashok and 5 Others

Ram Kewal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Sugar Industries Lko. and 3 Others

Madhur Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Rural Development U.P. Lko. and 5 Others

Dhirendra Kumar Pandey vs Smt Suman Pandey and 6 Others