A bench of Justices B R Gavai and K Vinod Chandran was dealing with a challenge to the Allahabad High Court's order of January 5, 2025.

 

Petitioner, Mahendra Dev, the Director of Secondary Education approached the court challenging the order which directed his presence; if an affidavit of compliance was not filed or an interim order was not granted in the special appeal filed from the judgment, from which arose the contempt application.

 

Respondent Radhe Shyam Pandey was appointed on ad hoc basis as Assistant Teacher (LT Grade) by the Committee of the Management of the school on November 29, 1992. He was regularised much later in 2018 with retrospective effect from 2016.

 

He got retired on March 31, 2019 and claimed pension, also for the ad hoc service he had rendered in the school. In the writ application, relying on the judgment of a coordinate bench, the claim of the petitioner was allowed, directing computation of the ad hoc period as pensionable service.

 

The state government was directed to consider the grant of benefit of pension in accordance with the judgment.

 

As the respondent-State did not act, the writ petitioner moved the High Court with a contempt application. He was granted provisional pension, subject to the decision in the appeal, wherein the issue raised by the State, was reckoning of ad hoc service for the purpose of computing pensionable service.

 

The Single Judge took note of the grant of provisional pension; but insisted on regular pension being granted and directed the presence of the petitioner-herein before the apex court; if the directions were not complied with.

 

The impugned order also chastised the petitioner-herein for having sought for deferment of personal appearance on the ground of consent being required from the State Government for complying with the judgment of the Single Judge and also noticed the submission that an appeal against the judgment was pending, in which interim order of stay was also prayed for.

 

"We fully agree with the High Court that, no consent from the government is required to comply with the orders of the Writ Court," the apex court said.

 

However, the court pointed out, in the deferment application filed, it was specifically pointed out that an appeal was pending from the judgment from which the contempt application arose.

 

"As we noticed, the issue is also pending in a Special Leave Petition before this Court which was specifically spoken of in the application submitted for deferment before the High Court," the bench said.

 

The court referred to Modern Food Industries (India) Ltd & Anr Vs Sachidanand Dass & Anr (1995), wherein it was stated, to keep the prayer for stay standby and to insist upon proceeding with the complaint for contempt might in many conceivable cases cause serious prejudice.

 

"It is true that a mere filing of an appeal and an application for stay do not by themselves absolve the appellants from obeying the order under appeal and that any compliance with the Single Judge's order would be subject to the final result of the appeal. But then the changes brought about in the interregnum in obedience of the order under appeal might themselves be a cause and source of prejudice. Wherever the order whose disobedience is complained about is appealed against and stay of its operation is pending before the Court, it will be appropriate to take up for consideration the prayer for stay either earlier or at least simultaneously with the complaint for contempt," the court had then said.

 

The court thus held the litigant’s remedy of appeal cannot be allowed to be frustrated under threat of contempt proceedings.

 

"The direction of the Single Judge to produce a stay order or comply with the directions, would indirectly result in directing the division bench to peremptorily take up the stay application in the appeal," the bench pointed out.

 

The top court also noted it was admitted case of the writ petitioner that he had been continuing on ad hoc service till 2016; regularisation having been occasioned only due to an amendment brought into the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Service Selection Board Act, 1982; in 2016, by virtue of an amendment of that year.

 

"In the totality of the circumstances, especially since the respondent has been granted provisional pension, we direct that the contempt proceedings be kept in abeyance till the appeal is disposed of," the bench ordered.

 

Case Title: Mahendra Dev Vs Radhe Shyam Pandey