Disposed

Smt. Neeta Rani v. Shri Anil Bhushan Chaturvedi, Director of Education (Basic)

Allahabad HC17 Sept 2026CAPL/6489/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court considered a contempt application alleging non-compliance with an earlier order directing payment of salary, allowances, benefits and retirement benefits to teaching and non-teaching employees of the institution. The applicant was not a party to the earlier writ proceedings. The court consigned the contempt application to record and left the applicant free to pursue available legal remedies.

What did the court decide?

The contempt application was consigned to record, with liberty to the applicant to pursue other legal remedies available under the law.

Smt. Neeta Rani Vs Shri Anil Bhushan Chaturvedi… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2026)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 6489 of 2026

¶2

Smt. Neeta Rani

¶3

Versus	.....Applicant(s)
Shri Anil Bhushan Chaturvedi, Director Of Education (Basic)	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :	Mukesh Kumar Upadhyay

¶4

Court No. - 53

¶5

HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

¶6

The present contempt application has been preferred alleging noncompliance of the order dated 16.11.1998 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11031 of 1996, operative portion whereof is quoted hereinunder:

¶7

"In conclusion, both the writ petitions succeed and are hereby allowed. Quashing the impugned order dated 29.3.1997, which curtails the grant to the petitioners' School, the respondents State of U.P. as well as Director of Education (Basic), Lucknow are commanded to pay full salary, dearness allowance, other allowances, bonus, interim relief, including the benefits of Selection Grade as well as retiral benefits, to the teaching and non-teaching employees of Shri Maheshwar Montessori Bal Mandir, Madar Gate, Aligarh as are admissible and being paid to the teaching and non-teaching employees of Basic Schools run by the Parishad, with immediate effect. Parties shall bear their own costs."

¶8

An intra-court appeal came to be preferred being Special Appeal No. 434 of 1999, State of U.P. and others Vs. Sushila Srivastava, which came to be dismissed on 24.11.2009, order whereof is quoted hereinunder:

¶9

"This special appeal under Rule 5 of Chapter 8 of the High Court Rules has been filed against the judgment dated 16.11.1998 passed in writ petition no. 12826 of 1997. The question which fell for consideration before the learned Single Judge was:

¶10

"Whether the teaching and non-teaching employees of the private recognised primary schools are entitled to full salary, allowances and other benefits as are admissible to their counterparts in the Basic schools run by the Basic Shikchha Parishad, U.P.. The petitioners in the writ

¶11

CAPL No. 6489 of 2026

¶12

¶13

petition are the class 3 and class 4 employees of non-teaching staff of recognised aided Montessori schools. It is clear that the salary of the non-teaching staff are being paid from the amount released from the public exchequer which is released as grant-in-aid by the State Government.

¶14

We have perused the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has relied upon the judgment of this Court in writ petition no. 17846 of 1988 decided on 27.11.1991. By the said judgment the same relief was granted to the employees of the institution in which they were teaching & which was also grant-in-aid. Against that order the State Government filed a special leave petition before the Supreme Court challenging the order dated 27.11.1991 but the same was dismissed on 14.1.1993. The State Government then moved a review petition which too was dismissed.

¶15

The learned Single Judge after scrutiny of the Rules and Education Code recorded a finding that the non-teaching employees of the private recognised primary schools on grant-in-aid fall in the same class as of Basic Schools run by the Basic Shikchha Parishad. The learned judge allowed the writ petition and quashed the circular dated 29.3.1997. We are in full agreement with the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge & we therefore uphold the judgment of the Single Judge.

¶16

The appeal is devoid of merits & is hereby dismissed."

¶17

Against which a Civil Appeal No. 283 of 2014, State of Uttar Pradesh through its Director of Education (Basic) and others Vs. Sushila Srivastava and others came to be preferred in which on 11.09.2025, the following orders have been passed:-

¶18

"1) After hearing learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, we are not inclined to entertain the present appeal. Accordingly, the civil appeal stands dismissed leaving the question of law open.

¶19

2) However, we make it clear that the writ petitions pending before the High Court be decided in accordance with law.

¶20

3) We further make it clear that we are not "entertaining the applications for impleadment filed by the persons who were not parties before the Writ Court. Accordingly, their applications for impleadment are dismissed with the liberty to take recourse as permissible to them under the law before High Court.

¶21

4) All other pending applications shall stand disposed of."

¶22

CAPL No. 6489 of 2026

¶23

¶24

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant happens to be the teacher in the same institution but not a party in the writ petition, thus, in view of the liberty so accorded by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the present contempt application has been preferred.

¶25

On a pointed query being raised to the learned counsel for the applicant as to what remedy has been availed, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant shall also seek relief / direction from the Court claiming the benefits which have been accorded to his counterparts who were sailing on the same boat.

¶26

In view of the above, the contempt application is consigned to record , leaving it open to the applicant to take legal remedies which are available and permissible under law.

¶27

September 18, 2026 Ashu

¶28

(Vikas Budhwar,J.)

¶29

Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Neeta Rani v. Shri Anil Bhushan Chaturvedi, Director of Education (Basic)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Neeta Rani v. Shri Anil Bhushan Chaturvedi, Director of Education (Basic)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases