Ramji Pandey v. Sri O.P. Gupta Dy Director of Secondary Education, Ayodhya)

Sri Mahendra Dev, Director, Secondary Education, U.P., Lucknow i.e. respondent is present and has filed an application for adjourned in the light of order dated 22.01.2025 passed in Contempt Application (Civil) No.3458 of 2024 (Ramji Pandey vs. Sri O.P. Gupta Dy Director of Secondary Education, Ayodhya)> In the identical matters an SLP has been preferred wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has passed an order i.e. contempt proceedings shall not be precipitated by respondent no.1. In the light of order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the ground of the above mentioned order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court the deferment was sought and this Court had passed an order on 25.11.2024, for convenience the same is quoted hereinbelow: " 1. Reply filed by the applicant to the affidavit filed by the opposite party is taken on record.

2. Sri Mahendra Dev, Director of Education (Secondary) is present in the Court today.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel appearing for the opposite party that controversy in the present case pertains to the issue in question which has been decided by the Hon'ble Single Judge by order dated 25.05.2024, passed in Writ-A No. 49 of 2020, is also the issue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 19199 of 2023 - State of U.P. Vs. Surendra Singh, where directions of the Apex Court are only to not precipitate the contempt proceedings.

4. Accordingly, four weeks time is granted to the opposite party to comply with the directions of the writ Court or produce before this Court any interim order from the higher Court.

5. In case order of writ Court is not complied, the opposite party shall appear in person before this Court on the next date of listing.

6. List this case on 07.01.2025." Thereafter, the case was listed. Other applications were filed, first for the exemption for personal appearance and second for deferment. Again placing reliance on the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, another order was passed by this court on 21.10.2024, which is quoted hereinbelow: "1. By means of earlier order of this Court dated 18.09.2024, the respondent was directed to file a compliance affidavit, failing which he was required to appear before this Court in person.

2. Case has been taken up today.

3. Learned Standing Counsel has filed two applications.

4. The first application is for exemption from personal appearance of the respondent for today and another for deferment of the contempt proceedings.

5. Learned State Counsel has submitted that the application for exemption of personal appearance has been preferred as the respondent is at Allahabad to appear before the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Contempt Application (Civil) No. 3669 of 2009.

6. He further submits that some other date may be fixed and on that date, the respondent shall appear before the Court.

7. The reason assigned in the affidavit filed along with the application for exemption from personal appearance of the respondent is satisfactory.

8. The application is allowed.

9. The personal appearance of the respondent is exempted today.

10. For the application for deferment, the learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the ground taken in the deferment application for deferring the present contempt proceedings is that in view of the order dated 28.08.2023, passed in Special Leave Petition No. 19199 of 2023 in State of U.P and others versus Surendra Singh and others in Special Leave Petition No. 19199 of 2023, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has stayed the contempt proceedings involving the same issue which is the subject-matter in the case of the applicant, but the judgment and order dated 24.05.2024, passed by the Writ Court in favour of the applicant by giving benefit of the judgment in the case of Ramji Pandey versus State of U.P, in Writ A No. 2202 of 2024, which was passed in pursuance of the decision in the special appeal and another writ petition and not on the basis of the judgment in the case of Surendra Singh (supra).

11. It is further submitted that against the order dated 24.05.2024 passed in favour of the applicant, neither any special appeal has been preferred nor any Special Leave Petition was preferred against the judgment in special appeal or special appeal against judgment of another writ petition, the benefit of which has been granted in the case of Ramji Pandey (supra), therefore, he prays for some time to file objection against the deferment application. The judgment dated 24.05.2024 passed in favour of the applicant is still in existence and in operation.

12. As prayed, three weeks' time is granted to learned counsel for the applicant for filing objection.

13. List this case in the week commencing 25.11.2024. On that date, the respondent shall appear in person. " But the respondent has chosen not to file the compliance affidavit and again counsel for the respondent has argued the same facts and has stated that in compliance of the judgement and order the provisional pension has been given to the applicant but this Court passed an order on 18.09.2024, which is quoted hereinbelow: "1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Standing Counsel.

2. This application under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act has been filed alleging wilful disobedience of the judgment and order dated 24.05.2024 passed on Writ-A No. 49 of 2020.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the claim of pension of the applicant was rejected by the respondent vide order dated 16th December, 2019, which was challenged in Writ-A No. 49 of 2020. It is further submitted that the writ Court allowed the said petition vide order dated 24.05.2024 with the direction to Director, Higher Education to consider the grant of benefit of pension to the applicant-petitioner in the light of judgment dated 25.04.2024 passed in Writ-A No. 2202 of 2024 read with Rules, 1964, within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of certified copy of the order. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the claim of the applicant is deferred by the respondent, only by giving provisional pension and, therefore, the direction of the writ Court has not been complied with. Reply to the affidavit of compliance is also filed by the learned counsel for the applicant, which is taken on record.

4. Considering the contents of the order of writ Court as well as the affidavit of compliance as also the reply filed by the applicant, it is evident that the respondent authorities granted the provisional pension to the applicant, in place of deciding the case of the applicant for regular pension. In view of above, affidavit of compliance filed by the respondent is hereby rejected.

5. List this case on 21.10.2024.

6. In case, fresh affidavit of compliance is not filed by the next date, the respondent shall appear before this Court for framing of charges." Lastly, the contemnor - respondent has come with a case that for compliance of the judgement and order passed by the High Court the consent is required from the State Government, so he had come with a new ground for the purpose of deferment of the contempt proceedings, but after arguing at some length on being asked whether he will file an affidavit of compliance in case the interim order is not granted in the special appeal as mentioned above without waiting for consent from the State Government, he has replied that two weeks' time may be granted for filing compliance affidavit subject to the decision in the special appeal. The order dated 7.1.2025 is quoted hereinbelow: "Dr. Mahendra Dev, Director, Secondary Education has filed an application for deferment of contempt case, which is taken on record. Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that in the affidavit filed alongwith the deferment application mainly three grounds have been taken for deferment, firstly, the benefit of judgement passed in Ram Ji Pandey vs. State of U.P in Writ-A No.2202 of 2024, given to the present applicant, against which a special appeal has already been filed and the same is listed today and, secondly, for compliance of judgement and order passed by writ court consent from the State Government is required and thirdly, against the judgement and order dated 24.05.2024 a special appeal has been filed on 6.1.2025, which will come on board on 9.1.2025. As far as the submission of learned Standing Counsel relating to deferment of the preset contempt application on the ground of filing of special appeal in the case of Ram Ji Pandey, which is listed today and a special appeal filed against the judgement and order dated 24.05.2024 passed in the case of present applicant which is likely to be listed on 9.1.2025, the matter could be adjourned waiting for the outcome of the order passed in the special appeals, but the submission of the Director Secondary Education that for compliance of the order of the High Court the consent is required from the State Government is not accepted as no consent is required from the State for compliance of judgement / order passed by the Court and it is nothing but willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court. The case is deferred for today as the special appeal is listed today itself in the case of Ram Ji Pandey and benefit of which has also been given to the applicant and the special appeal preferred against the judgement passed in favour of the applicant, which is likely to be listed on 9.1.2025. On being asked from Dr. Mahendra Dev, Director, Secondary Education whether he would file an affidavit of compliance in case the interim order is not granted in the special appeals as mentioned above without waiting for the consent from the State Government, he has replied that two weeks' time may be granted for filing compliance affidavit subject to the decision in the special appeals listed today and likely to be listed on 9.1.2025 as informed. As such, two weeks' time is granted. List this case on 27.01.2025. In case the interim order is not granted in the special appeals on the dates as mentioned above, the Director, Secondary Education shall file an affidavit of compliance by the next date, failing which he shall appear for the purposes of framing of charges for non compliance of the judgement and order passed by this Court." It is also submitted that against the order dated 7.1.2025 the SLP has been preferred on 24.01.2025, so the matter may be deferred. On the other learned counsel for the applicant has submitted, firstly, the respondent had waited for the orders passed in the special appeal and no orders have been passed till date in the special appeal staying the operation of the order passed by the writ court and after the expiry of period of two weeks' on 24.1.2025 at 8.42 PM the SLP was filed i.e. immediately before the listing of the present case, whereas neither the SLP has been listed before the Court nor there is any order in favour of the respondent. Under these circumstances the action on the part of the respondent is nothing but a willful disobedience of the judgement of this Court. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record of the case and the earlier orders passed by this Court consistently given opportunity to the respondent for compliance of the order passed by the writ court, the respondent is evading to comply the order passed by the writ court and always come before this Court with some new grounds or repeating the same grounds. This act of the respondent is willful and intentional disobedience of the order passed by the writ court. In the aforesaid circumstances, a case under Rule 5 of Chapter XXXV-E of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 (Rules framed under Section 23 of Contempt of Courts Act,1971) is made out, accordingly the following charge is being framed against the Mahendra Dev, respondent- Education( Madhyamik Shiksha), Department of Secondary Education 18, Park Road, Campt Office, U.P. Lucknow :- Director Dr "Why contemnor - respondent be not punished for willful and deliberate disobedience of the judgement and order dated 24.05.2024 passed in Writ-A No.49 of 2020 (Radhe Shyam Pandey vs. State of U.P. and others)". The respondent - contemnor is granted two weeks' time to file reply to the aforesaid charge. List this case on 10.02.2025. On that date, the respondent shall appear. Order Date :- 27.1.2025 S. Kumar

Sri Mahendra Dev, Director, Secondary Education, U.P., Lucknow i.e. respondent is present and has filed an application for adjourned in the light of order dated 22.01.2025 passed in Contempt Application (Civil) No.3458 of 2024 (Ramji Pandey vs. Sri O.P. Gupta Dy Director of Secondary Education, Ayodhya)> In the identical matters an SLP has been preferred wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has passed an order i.e. contempt proceedings shall not be precipitated by respondent no.1. In the light of order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the ground of the above mentioned order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court the deferment was sought and this Court had passed an order on 25.11.2024, for convenience the same is quoted hereinbelow: " 1. Reply filed by the applicant to the affidavit filed by the opposite party is taken on record.

2. Sri Mahendra Dev, Director of Education (Secondary) is present in the Court today.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel appearing for the opposite party that controversy in the present case pertains to the issue in question which has been decided by the Hon'ble Single Judge by order dated 25.05.2024, passed in Writ-A No. 49 of 2020, is also the issue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 19199 of 2023 - State of U.P. Vs. Surendra Singh, where directions of the Apex Court are only to not precipitate the contempt proceedings.

4. Accordingly, four weeks time is granted to the opposite party to comply with the directions of the writ Court or produce before this Court any interim order from the higher Court.

5. In case order of writ Court is not complied, the opposite party shall appear in person before this Court on the next date of listing.

6. List this case on 07.01.2025." Thereafter, the case was listed. Other applications were filed, first for the exemption for personal appearance and second for deferment. Again placing reliance on the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, another order was passed by this court on 21.10.2024, which is quoted hereinbelow: "1. By means of earlier order of this Court dated 18.09.2024, the respondent was directed to file a compliance affidavit, failing which he was required to appear before this Court in person.

2. Case has been taken up today.

3. Learned Standing Counsel has filed two applications.

4. The first application is for exemption from personal appearance of the respondent for today and another for deferment of the contempt proceedings.

5. Learned State Counsel has submitted that the application for exemption of personal appearance has been preferred as the respondent is at Allahabad to appear before the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Contempt Application (Civil) No. 3669 of 2009.

6. He further submits that some other date may be fixed and on that date, the respondent shall appear before the Court.

7. The reason assigned in the affidavit filed along with the application for exemption from personal appearance of the respondent is satisfactory.

8. The application is allowed.

9. The personal appearance of the respondent is exempted today.

10. For the application for deferment, the learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the ground taken in the deferment application for deferring the present contempt proceedings is that in view of the order dated 28.08.2023, passed in Special Leave Petition No. 19199 of 2023 in State of U.P and others versus Surendra Singh and others in Special Leave Petition No. 19199 of 2023, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has stayed the contempt proceedings involving the same issue which is the subject-matter in the case of the applicant, but the judgment and order dated 24.05.2024, passed by the Writ Court in favour of the applicant by giving benefit of the judgment in the case of Ramji Pandey versus State of U.P, in Writ A No. 2202 of 2024, which was passed in pursuance of the decision in the special appeal and another writ petition and not on the basis of the judgment in the case of Surendra Singh (supra).

11. It is further submitted that against the order dated 24.05.2024 passed in favour of the applicant, neither any special appeal has been preferred nor any Special Leave Petition was preferred against the judgment in special appeal or special appeal against judgment of another writ petition, the benefit of which has been granted in the case of Ramji Pandey (supra), therefore, he prays for some time to file objection against the deferment application. The judgment dated 24.05.2024 passed in favour of the applicant is still in existence and in operation.

12. As prayed, three weeks' time is granted to learned counsel for the applicant for filing objection.

13. List this case in the week commencing 25.11.2024. On that date, the respondent shall appear in person. " But the respondent has chosen not to file the compliance affidavit and again counsel for the respondent has argued the same facts and has stated that in compliance of the judgement and order the provisional pension has been given to the applicant but this Court passed an order on 18.09.2024, which is quoted hereinbelow: "1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Standing Counsel.

2. This application under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act has been filed alleging wilful disobedience of the judgment and order dated 24.05.2024 passed on Writ-A No. 49 of 2020.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the claim of pension of the applicant was rejected by the respondent vide order dated 16th December, 2019, which was challenged in Writ-A No. 49 of 2020. It is further submitted that the writ Court allowed the said petition vide order dated 24.05.2024 with the direction to Director, Higher Education to consider the grant of benefit of pension to the applicant-petitioner in the light of judgment dated 25.04.2024 passed in Writ-A No. 2202 of 2024 read with Rules, 1964, within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of certified copy of the order. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the claim of the applicant is deferred by the respondent, only by giving provisional pension and, therefore, the direction of the writ Court has not been complied with. Reply to the affidavit of compliance is also filed by the learned counsel for the applicant, which is taken on record.

4. Considering the contents of the order of writ Court as well as the affidavit of compliance as also the reply filed by the applicant, it is evident that the respondent authorities granted the provisional pension to the applicant, in place of deciding the case of the applicant for regular pension. In view of above, affidavit of compliance filed by the respondent is hereby rejected.

5. List this case on 21.10.2024.

6. In case, fresh affidavit of compliance is not filed by the next date, the respondent shall appear before this Court for framing of charges." Lastly, the contemnor - respondent has come with a case that for compliance of the judgement and order passed by the High Court the consent is required from the State Government, so he had come with a new ground for the purpose of deferment of the contempt proceedings, but after arguing at some length on being asked whether he will file an affidavit of compliance in case the interim order is not granted in the special appeal as mentioned above without waiting for consent from the State Government, he has replied that two weeks' time may be granted for filing compliance affidavit subject to the decision in the special appeal. The order dated 7.1.2025 is quoted hereinbelow: "Dr. Mahendra Dev, Director, Secondary Education has filed an application for deferment of contempt case, which is taken on record. Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that in the affidavit filed alongwith the deferment application mainly three grounds have been taken for deferment, firstly, the benefit of judgement passed in Ram Ji Pandey vs. State of U.P in Writ-A No.2202 of 2024, given to the present applicant, against which a special appeal has already been filed and the same is listed today and, secondly, for compliance of judgement and order passed by writ court consent from the State Government is required and thirdly, against the judgement and order dated 24.05.2024 a special appeal has been filed on 6.1.2025, which will come on board on 9.1.2025. As far as the submission of learned Standing Counsel relating to deferment of the preset contempt application on the ground of filing of special appeal in the case of Ram Ji Pandey, which is listed today and a special appeal filed against the judgement and order dated 24.05.2024 passed in the case of present applicant which is likely to be listed on 9.1.2025, the matter could be adjourned waiting for the outcome of the order passed in the special appeals, but the submission of the Director Secondary Education that for compliance of the order of the High Court the consent is required from the State Government is not accepted as no consent is required from the State for compliance of judgement / order passed by the Court and it is nothing but willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court. The case is deferred for today as the special appeal is listed today itself in the case of Ram Ji Pandey and benefit of which has also been given to the applicant and the special appeal preferred against the judgement passed in favour of the applicant, which is likely to be listed on 9.1.2025. On being asked from Dr. Mahendra Dev, Director, Secondary Education whether he would file an affidavit of compliance in case the interim order is not granted in the special appeals as mentioned above without waiting for the consent from the State Government, he has replied that two weeks' time may be granted for filing compliance affidavit subject to the decision in the special appeals listed today and likely to be listed on 9.1.2025 as informed. As such, two weeks' time is granted. List this case on 27.01.2025. In case the interim order is not granted in the special appeals on the dates as mentioned above, the Director, Secondary Education shall file an affidavit of compliance by the next date, failing which he shall appear for the purposes of framing of charges for non compliance of the judgement and order passed by this Court." It is also submitted that against the order dated 7.1.2025 the SLP has been preferred on 24.01.2025, so the matter may be deferred. On the other learned counsel for the applicant has submitted, firstly, the respondent had waited for the orders passed in the special appeal and no orders have been passed till date in the special appeal staying the operation of the order passed by the writ court and after the expiry of period of two weeks' on 24.1.2025 at 8.42 PM the SLP was filed i.e. immediately before the listing of the present case, whereas neither the SLP has been listed before the Court nor there is any order in favour of the respondent. Under these circumstances the action on the part of the respondent is nothing but a willful disobedience of the judgement of this Court. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record of the case and the earlier orders passed by this Court consistently given opportunity to the respondent for compliance of the order passed by the writ court, the respondent is evading to comply the order passed by the writ court and always come before this Court with some new grounds or repeating the same grounds. This act of the respondent is willful and intentional disobedience of the order passed by the writ court. In the aforesaid circumstances, a case under Rule 5 of Chapter XXXV-E of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 (Rules framed under Section 23 of Contempt of Courts Act,1971) is made out, accordingly the following charge is being framed against the Mahendra Dev, respondent- Education( Madhyamik Shiksha), Department of Secondary Education 18, Park Road, Campt Office, U.P. Lucknow :- Director Dr "Why contemnor - respondent be not punished for willful and deliberate disobedience of the judgement and order dated 24.05.2024 passed in Writ-A No.49 of 2020 (Radhe Shyam Pandey vs. State of U.P. and others)". The respondent - contemnor is granted two weeks' time to file reply to the aforesaid charge. List this case on 10.02.2025. On that date, the respondent shall appear. Order Date :- 27.1.2025 S. Kumar