Dinkar Dubey and 18 Others vs Sri Ram Pravesh, Distt. Basic Edu. Officer Lko.

The affidavit sworn by opposite party/contemnor/Sri Ram Prawesh, presently posted as Vice Principal of District Institute of Education and Training, District, Lucknow, filed in support of the application seeking discharge, is taken on record.

¶12

The discharge has been sought on following two grounds:-

¶13

(i) At the time of filing of instant contempt petition/application, the opposite party/contemnor was posted on the post of District Basic Education Officer, Lucknow and presently on the said post new incumbent namely Sri Vipin Kumar has joined.

¶14

(ii) Sri Vipin Kumar, who at present is posted as District Basic Education Officer, Lucknow, has passed the order dated 06.04.2026, whereby rejected the claim of the applicants.

¶15

The opposite party/contemnor cannot be discharged on the grounds aforesaid. It is for the following fact(s)/reason(s):-

¶16

(a) The order of the Writ Court in issue dated 10.12.2024, based upon the order dated 07.05.2024 passed in Writ-A No. 3863 of 2018 (Smt. Raj Kishori Kushwaha vs. State of U.P. and others), ought to have been complied with by the opposite party/contemnor/Sri Ram Prawesh within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order, which was produced before him (contemnor) on 21.12.2024 and he did not comply the order of Writ Court.

¶17

(b) The fact that the deponent/contemnor has been transferred would not absolve him from contempt of court if ultimately it is found that disobedience of the order of Writ Court was willful.

¶18

(c) The order dated 06.04.2026 is based upon the judgment dated 30.04.2025 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 652 of 2024 (Secretary, Up Basic Education Board And 2 Others vs. Tripurari Dubey And 3 Others) and other connected matters.

¶19

(d) The Division Bench vide order dated 30.04.2025 has modified the order dated 15.05.2024 passed by the Writ Court in Writ-A No. 18228 of 2022 (Tripurari Dubey And Another vs. State of U.P. And 4 Others) and by this order dated 30.05.2024 passed in Special Appeal No. 652 of 2024, the Division Bench has not modified the order dated 10.12.2024, under

¶20

CAPL No. 2157 of 2025

¶21

2

¶22

consideration, which reads as under:-

¶23

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri G.K.Singh, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents no. 1 & 2 and Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3.

¶24

There is consensus at bar that the matter in issue is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court passed in Writ-A No. 3863 of 2018 Inre; Raj Kishori Kushwaha and Ors Vs. State of U.P and Ors, decided on 07.05.2024.

¶25

Accordingly taking into consideration the aforesaid consensus, the present petition is disposed of in light of the aforesaid judgment passed in the case of Raj Kishori Kushwaha (supra).

¶26

It is provided that the petitioners would also be entitled for the benefit of the judgment of Raj Kishori Kushwaha (supra)."

¶27

(e) Vide order dated 10.12.2024, the Writ Court has extended the benefit of the judgment dated 07.05.2024 passed in Writ-A No. 3863 of 2018 in favour of the applicants.

¶28

(f) At this stage, on being asked Sri Manish Mishra, Advocate, who appeared for the opposite party, stated that he is not aware with regard to challenge made to the judgment dated 07.05.2024 passed by this Court in Writ-A No. 3863 of 2018, the relevant portion of which is reads as under:-

¶29

"2. In view of the facts as stated above as well as law down by the Full Bench of this Court and various judgments passed by the Honâ€™ble Apex Court, the petitioner is entitled for higher salary even for ad-hoc basis on the post of Headmistress.

¶30

13. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.

¶31

14. A mandamus is issued in favour of the petitioner for payment of arrears of salary along with all consequential benefits with effect from 17.02.1988 till date, she discharged her duties as Headmistress in the institution in question, within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order before the concerned respondent."

¶32

(g) Upon considering the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that the facts pleaded in the affidavit sworn by opposite party/contemnor/Sri Ram Prawesh, based upon the order dated 06.04.2026 passed by the present District Basic Education Officer, Lucknow, filed in support of the application seeking discharge have no force and this Court, prima facie, is also of the view that it is an attempt to mislead this Court.

¶33

For the facts and reasons aforesaid, the discharge application filed in the Court today is hereby rejected.

¶34

List/put up this case on 20.04.2026, on which date the officer, who is present before the Court today, shall appear again.

¶35

(Saurabh Lavania,J.)

¶36

April 13, 2026 Arun/-

¶37

Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Dinkar Dubey and 18 Others v. Sri Ram Pravesh, Distt. Basic Edu. Officer Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinkar Dubey and 18 Others v. Sri Ram Pravesh, Distt. Basic Edu. Officer Lko.

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

Sarvesh Kumar vs Shri Awadhesh Kumar, Consolidation Officer Rudali Distt. Ayodhya

Nawed Alam Ansari and 18 Others vs Shri Akhilesh Pratap Singh District Basic Education Officer Sitapur

Md. Jameel Khan vs Shri Haratheesh Addl. General Manager/Unit Head Iti Ltd. Raebareli U.P. and Another

Fazal Ahmad Usmani vs Smt. Monika S. Garg Prin. Secy. Minorities Welfare Govt. of U.P. Lko. and Others

Gopal Das Gupta and 4 Others vs Dinesh Kumar Kurli Executive Engineer P.W.D. Officer Opposit Governor Lko. and 2 Others

Brindavan Yadav and 5 Others vs Shri Bonik Chand Brahma, Chief Conservator of Forest Gorakhpur U.P.