Smt. Neeraj Mishra vs Sri Raghvendra Pratap Singh Baghel District Inspector of Schools-Ii, Lucknow

The present contempt application has been preferred for alleged non-compliance of the judgment and order dated 31.05.2024 passed by Writ Court in Writ A No. 650 of 2024. The relevant paras of the said judgment and order are being reproduced hereinbelow:-

¶14

"31. Consequently, the orders of rejection, assailed in the present bunch of writ petitions are hereby quashed.

¶15

32. The writ petitions are allowed, accordingly.

¶16

33. All the matters are relegated back to the Regional Level Committees concerned to pass order afresh within a period of three months, after calling the records from the committee of management as well as the District Inspectors of Schools concern and by verifying the same. It is further directed that the petitioners shall also be provided the opportunity of hearing, if so required. The scheme provided under Section 33-G of the Act, 1982 shall strictly be adhered to, keeping in view of the requirement of procedure to be adopted by the Committee so constituted.

¶17

34. In addition, it is further provided that the petitioners of the present bunch of writ petitions are entitled to continue in service and shall be paid salary without any further break, till the decision so taken by the committee concerned. The petitioners as well as the Manager of the Committee of Management shall ensure their presence and would co-operate with the Regional Level Committee, as and when required. "

¶18

CAPL No. 3561 of 2024

¶19

2

¶20

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that despite the judgment and order dated 31.05.2024, the respondent no. 3 had not permitted the applicant to join in the institution though she had been regularly going to the institution for her joining, hence, respondent no. 3 is liable to be punished under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

¶21

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 has submitted that the applicant had never ever visited the institution for giving her joining and she had never made any representation to the respondent no. 3 in regard to her joining alongwith copy of the judgment and order passed by the Writ Court.

¶22

The said submission of learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 has been replied by learned counsel for the applicant drawing attention of this Court to the letter dated 08.04.2025 addressed to the District Inspector of Schools for joining and payment of salary and the copy of the same has been served upon the respondent no. 3.

¶23

Learned State Counsel has submitted that in compliance of the judgment and order dated 31.05.2024, the Regional Committee has taken a decision terminating the services of the applicant by passing an order dated 31.01.2025 and the same has been challenged by the applicant by filing a writ petition.

¶24

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, it is found that learned counsel for the applicant is unable to produce any document to show that the applicant had gone for joining in the institution or made representation to the respondent no. 3 annexing therewith the judgment and order dated 31.05.2024. The document, which has been relied by learned counsel for the applicant is of 08.4.2025 i.e. R.A. 2 to the reply submitted by the applicant against compliance affidavit filed by the D.I.O.S. for compliance of the interim order dated 25.03.2025 passed in Writ A No. 3238 of 2024, which has been filed against the subsequent termination order dated 31.01.2025 wherein it has been mentioned that the copy has been served upon respondent no. 3 and for service initial of some persons has been shown alongwith date without disclosing their identity who had received and without there being any stamp of the Committee of Management of the Institution. In any case, the service, which learned counsel for the applicant has relied is after passing of the subsequent termination order and the interim order passed in anther writ petition, so learned counsel for the applicant has failed to show any such document showing therein that she had approached the respondent no. 3 for her joining and when it was not given, she had not made any representation to the D.I.O.S. or any other higher authority in that regard.

¶25

Once, the applicant had not informed the D.I.O.S. regarding alleged non-joining by the respondent no. 3 then the D.I.O.S.cannot be attributable for defiance of the judgment and order of the Writ Court dated 31.05.2024, unless and until he is informed by the applicant that the judgment and order passed by the Writ Court was

¶26

CAPL No. 3561 of 2024

¶27

3

¶28

not being complied with by the Committee of Management.

¶29

In view of the facts, circumstances and discussion made hereinabove, the present contempt application is devoid of merit, hence, dismissed. However, it is open for the applicant to raise her grievance by availing remedy, as may be permissible under the law.

¶30

January 13, 2026 Ashish

¶31

(Manish Kumar,J.)

¶32

Digitally signed by :- ASHISH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Neeraj Mishra v. Sri Raghvendra Pratap Singh Baghel District Inspector of Schools-Ii, Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Neeraj Mishra v. Sri Raghvendra Pratap Singh Baghel District Inspector of Schools-Ii, Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Chandra Shekhar Singh vs Shri Santosh Kumar Sinha, Addl. General Manager/Unit Head Iti Ltd. Gonda and Another

Arshad Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and 3 Others

Neelam Singh vs Dr. Suresh Kumar, Chief Medical Officer, Distt. Sitapur

Smt. Pravesh Kanaujia vs Ms. Poppy Sharma General Manager (Hr) Central Bank of India Mumbai

Ram Raj vs Sri Naveen Khandelwal Divisional Director Social Forestry Division Sitapur

Manoj Kumar vs Sri Naveen Khandelwal Div. Dir. Social Forestry Div. Sitapur