High Court

4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits even though, again the claim of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 08.09.2011 against which, the applicant preferred another Writ Petition (S/S) No. 7505 of 2011, which was allowed on 15.09.2017 and while deprecating the act of the State authorities, direction was issued to the competent authority to examine the claim of the applicant for regularization of his services in accordance with the provisions of Rules, 2001, as amended from time to time, and also the observations made in the said judgment, including the law laid down in the case of Janardan Yadav Vs. State of U.P. (Writ Petition No. 38170 of 2005). However, since the case of the applicant was not considered by the authorities in accordance with the Rules, 2001 and the aforesaid Government Orders in pursuance of the orders of writ Court, the applicant filed Contempt Application No. 338 of 2018, in which, on the notices having been issued, it was informed that the claim for regularization of the applicant was considered and was rejected on 20.02.2018. This Court, finding that the case of the applicant was not considered in accordance with Rules, 2001 as well as the aforesaid Government Order dated

08.09.2010, proceeded with the contempt proceedings, whereafter, the applicant was regularized by the competent authority on 09.07.2018.

5. However, thereafter without disclosing the fact that the regularization order dated 09.07.2018 has already been passed by the competent authority, Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 19007-19008 of 2018 was filed, in which, contempt proceeding was stayed vide order dated

27.07.2018. Thereafter, the aforesaid SLP was numbered as Civil Diary No. 6200-6201 of 2021 and vide order dated

04.10.2021, Hon'ble Supreme Court, while allowing the appeal, set aside the orders dated 28.05.2018 and

10.07.2018 passed in Contempt Application No. 338 of

6. It is also submitted that the order dated 15.09.2017 was also challenged by the State Government in Special Appeal (D) No. 259 of 2018 and after arguing at some length, same was withdrawn by learned Chief Standing Counsel. Thereafter, against the orders dated 15.09.2017 passed in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 7505 of 2011 and order dated

25.09.2019 passed in Review Application No. 69300 of 2018, a Special Appeal (D) No. 534 of 2021 was filed by the State authorities, which was also dismissed on 10.04.2024. Order dated 10.04.2024 passed by the Division Bench of this Court is as under. "1. This is an appeal filed under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, which has been filed on 18.12.2021 challenging the judgment of the Writ Court dated 15.09.2017 passed in Writ Petition No.7505 (S/S) of 2011 and also challenging the order dated 25.09.2019 passed on Review Application No.69300 of 2018 which was filed by the appellant seeking review of the judgment dated 15.09.2017. In fact in the interregnum the original judgment of the Writ Court dated 15.09.2017 was put to challenge by an earlier special appeal which was filed belatedly and was numbered as Special Appeal Defective No.259 of 2018, however, the said appeal was withdrawn on 24.05.2019 in the following terms :- "Court No.1 C. M. Application No. 59917 of 2018 in re: Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 259 of 2018 Appellant :- State Of U.P Thru Secy Agriculture Deptt Lko & Ors Respondent :- Amlesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Appellant :- C.S.C Counsel for Respondent :- Ramesh Kumar Srivastava Hon'ble Vikram Nath,J. Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J. Heard Sri Ramesh Pandey, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the applicants and Sri Ramesh Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for the sole respondent. The appeal is filed beyond time by 6 months 29 days. As sufficient cause has been shown by the applicants, the application is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Let the appeal be treated to be within time. Order Date :- 24.5.2018 . Court No. - 1 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 259 of 2018 Appellant :- State Of U.P Thru Secy Agriculture Deptt Lko & Ors Respondent :- Amlesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Appellant :- C.S.C Counsel for Respondent :- Ramesh Kumar Srivastava Hon'ble Vikram Nath,J. Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J. Sri Ramesh Pandey, learned Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the appellants, after arguing the matter at some length, states that this intra-Court appeal may be dismissed as withdrawn as the appellants wish to file a review petition before the learned Single Judge. Sri Ramesh Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for the sole respondent is present. The Special Appeal is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. Order Date :- 24.5.2018 " Sri Ramesh Pandey, learned Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the appellants, after arguing the matter at some length, states that this intra-Court appeal may be dismissed as withdrawn as the appellants wish to file a review petition before the learned Single Judge. Sri Ramesh Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for the sole respondent is present. The Special Appeal is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. Order Date :- 24.5.2018 "

2. After withdrawing the said appeal, Review Application No.69300 of 2018 was filed before the Writ Court. The said review application came to be decided on 25.09.2019. However, this special appeal challenging the aforesaid impugned orders was filed only on 18.12.2021, therefore, even if the period utilised by the appellants in pursuing the review application, which was decided on 25.09.2019, is excluded as having being satisfactorily explained the fact of the matter is that the appeal having been filed on 18.12.2021, there is delay of a little more than two years. Whether the benefit of the orders passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 would be given to the appellant-State is also an issue. We find that the benefit of the orders passed therein were applicable only w.e.f. 15.03.2020. The time limit for filing the special appeal expired much prior to it. The time limit prescribed is one month which expired in October 2019.

3. Now when we peruse the affidavit containing the alleged explanation for the delay we find that for the period after 25.09.2019 till filing of the appeal on 18.12.2021, there is hardly any explanation which may be accepted by us.

4. The fact that in the interregnum, contempt proceedings were initiated and some of the orders passed in the contempt proceedings were put to challenge before Hon'ble the Supreme Court by means of S.L.P. [C] No.19007-19008/2018 which was ultimately converted into Civil Appeal Nos.6200-6201/2021 does not help the State because the subject matter of the special leave petition was the orders passed in the contempt proceedings. Moreover, on 04.10.2021 the said SLP was decided. The said order has been placed before us. No doubt, ultimately the orders passed in the contempt proceedings were quashed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the aforesaid Civil Appeal on 04.10.2021, but this is not at all relevant so far as filing of the special appeal against the judgment of the Writ Court dated 15.09.2017 and the order passed on the review application dated 25.09.2019 is concerned. There was nothing which stopped the appellants/State herein to challenge the said orders by filing an appeal within the limitation of one month as prescribed under the Rules of the Court or within a reasonable period or for that matter to offer a plausible and acceptable explanation for filing the appeal after more than two years.

5. In the interregnum, though the claim of the respondent for regularisation was rejected on 20.02.2018, but ultimately on 09.07.2018 the services of the respondent were regularized and the rejection order dated 20.02.2018 was withdrawn vide order dated 14.05.2018. We have perused the order of regularization of the respondent. The said order was passed subject to result of review application. As already stated, the review application had already been rejected and the same has been challenged in this appeal which has been filed with the delay of more than two years.

6. Even after perusing the affidavit in support of the application for condonation of delay, all that we find that the explanation offered therein is that the paper book was assigned to Chief Standing Counsel and thereafter the opinion was sent to the Department on 18.01.2020 by the office of Chief Standing Counsel and in furtherance of the opinion given by the Chief Standing Counsel a proposal was sent to the State Government by the Directorate of Agricultural for preferring the special appeal against the judgment and order dated 15.09.2017 passed in writ petition as well as order dated 25.09.2019 passed in the review proceeding. No date has been mentioned as to when all this happened. Even if date 18.01.2020 is taken, this does not explain the delay in filing the appeal on 18.12.2021.

7. Further in para 18 of the affidavit it has been stated that the State Government accorded necessary permission on 23.01.2020 for preferring the special appeal and in pursuance thereof the special appeal was allotted by the Chief Standing Counsel on 24.01.2020 to the Additional Chief Standing Counsel. The Additional Chief Standing Counsel returned the paper book to the Chief Standing Counsel assigning some personal reason showing unavailability in preparation of special appeal. All this hardly explains the delay as has been noticed hereinabove. When the State Government had granted the permission on 23.01.2020 why the special appeal was filed on 18.12.2021, there is no explanation. Vague averments have been made in paragraph nos.19 to 24, which do not satisfy us.

8. For all these reasons we do not find the explanation offered by the State for the delay in filing the appeal as satisfactory nor is it acceptable. Application for condonation of delay is rejected. Consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed."

7. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the respondent authorities are adamant for not complying the directions as well as observations made by the writ Court to consider the case of the applicant in terms of the Government Order as well as Rules, 2001. It is, thus, submitted that the affidavit of compliance filed today is in clear violation of the order of writ Court as well as the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal (D) No. 534 of 2021.

8. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent, while referring to the affidavit of compliance duly sworn by respondent no. 1-Mr. Jitendra Kumar Tomar, Director, Agriculture, Agricultural Directorate, U.P., Lucknow, submits that the decision has already been taken in the case of the applicant. It is further submitted that seeking compliance of the direction of the writ Court, the Contempt Application No. 338 of 2018 was preferred by the applicant. It is also submitted that the orders passed on

28.05.2018 and 10.07.2018 in the said contempt proceedings were challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal No. 19007-19008 of 2018. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, on finding that once a decision has been taken, contempt court cannot examine the case. Thereafter, aforesaid SLP was registered as Civil Appeal No. 6200-6201 of 2021, which was allowed vide order dated

04.10.2021 while setting aside the orders dated

28.05.2018 and 10.07.2018 passed in Contempt Application No. 338 of 2018.

9. Specific question having been asked from learned Additional Advocate General that as to whether the regularization order dated 09.07.2018 was passed by the then Authorities or not, as has been quoted in the earlier order passed by this Court on 29.04.2018, he accepted that it was passed. However, learned Additional Advocate General also submits that later on, order dated 10.08.2018 was passed, by which, the said order has been kept in abeyance by then Director/competent authority. The said order dated 10.08.2018 is also quoted in earlier order passed by this Court on 29.04.2025.

10. It is also informed by Shri Tripathi that thereafter, review as well as Special Appeal was also preferred by the State Government. Shri Kuldeep Pati Tripathi, thus, submits that there is no violation of the directions of the writ Court and, therefore, the contempt application may be dismissed.

11. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent and going through the record, it is evident that the regularization order dated

09.07.2018 passed by the competent authority was never brought before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which is apparent from the orders passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 27.07.2018 and 04.10.2021. It is also evident from the earlier affidavit of compliance filed by the respondent no. 1 that the regularization order dated 09.07.2018 was kept in abeyance vide order dated 10.08.2018 passed by then Director, Agriculture Directorate, Lucknow, but evidently, this fact was not brought before the Court deciding review application or before the Division Bench while deciding Special Appeal No. 534 of 2021.

12. In view of above, the application for discharge of contempt notices along with the affidavit of compliance is hereby rejected.

13. List this case on 29.05.2025 at 11.30 a.m.

14. On the next date, respondent no. 1 shall appear before this Court for the purposes of framing of charges.

15. The respondent no. 1 shall also inform as to whether the orders dated 09.07.2018 and 10.08.2018 were placed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6200- 6201 of 2021. Order Date :- 26.5.2025 VKS

4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits even though, again the claim of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 08.09.2011 against which, the applicant preferred another Writ Petition (S/S) No. 7505 of 2011, which was allowed on 15.09.2017 and while deprecating the act of the State authorities, direction was issued to the competent authority to examine the claim of the applicant for regularization of his services in accordance with the provisions of Rules, 2001, as amended from time to time, and also the observations made in the said judgment, including the law laid down in the case of Janardan Yadav Vs. State of U.P. (Writ Petition No. 38170 of 2005). However, since the case of the applicant was not considered by the authorities in accordance with the Rules, 2001 and the aforesaid Government Orders in pursuance of the orders of writ Court, the applicant filed Contempt Application No. 338 of 2018, in which, on the notices having been issued, it was informed that the claim for regularization of the applicant was considered and was rejected on 20.02.2018. This Court, finding that the case of the applicant was not considered in accordance with Rules, 2001 as well as the aforesaid Government Order dated

08.09.2010, proceeded with the contempt proceedings, whereafter, the applicant was regularized by the competent authority on 09.07.2018.

5. However, thereafter without disclosing the fact that the regularization order dated 09.07.2018 has already been passed by the competent authority, Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 19007-19008 of 2018 was filed, in which, contempt proceeding was stayed vide order dated

27.07.2018. Thereafter, the aforesaid SLP was numbered as Civil Diary No. 6200-6201 of 2021 and vide order dated

04.10.2021, Hon'ble Supreme Court, while allowing the appeal, set aside the orders dated 28.05.2018 and

10.07.2018 passed in Contempt Application No. 338 of

6. It is also submitted that the order dated 15.09.2017 was also challenged by the State Government in Special Appeal (D) No. 259 of 2018 and after arguing at some length, same was withdrawn by learned Chief Standing Counsel. Thereafter, against the orders dated 15.09.2017 passed in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 7505 of 2011 and order dated

25.09.2019 passed in Review Application No. 69300 of 2018, a Special Appeal (D) No. 534 of 2021 was filed by the State authorities, which was also dismissed on 10.04.2024. Order dated 10.04.2024 passed by the Division Bench of this Court is as under. "1. This is an appeal filed under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, which has been filed on 18.12.2021 challenging the judgment of the Writ Court dated 15.09.2017 passed in Writ Petition No.7505 (S/S) of 2011 and also challenging the order dated 25.09.2019 passed on Review Application No.69300 of 2018 which was filed by the appellant seeking review of the judgment dated 15.09.2017. In fact in the interregnum the original judgment of the Writ Court dated 15.09.2017 was put to challenge by an earlier special appeal which was filed belatedly and was numbered as Special Appeal Defective No.259 of 2018, however, the said appeal was withdrawn on 24.05.2019 in the following terms :- "Court No.1 C. M. Application No. 59917 of 2018 in re: Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 259 of 2018 Appellant :- State Of U.P Thru Secy Agriculture Deptt Lko & Ors Respondent :- Amlesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Appellant :- C.S.C Counsel for Respondent :- Ramesh Kumar Srivastava Hon'ble Vikram Nath,J. Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J. Heard Sri Ramesh Pandey, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the applicants and Sri Ramesh Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for the sole respondent. The appeal is filed beyond time by 6 months 29 days. As sufficient cause has been shown by the applicants, the application is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Let the appeal be treated to be within time. Order Date :- 24.5.2018 . Court No. - 1 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 259 of 2018 Appellant :- State Of U.P Thru Secy Agriculture Deptt Lko & Ors Respondent :- Amlesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Appellant :- C.S.C Counsel for Respondent :- Ramesh Kumar Srivastava Hon'ble Vikram Nath,J. Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J. Sri Ramesh Pandey, learned Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the appellants, after arguing the matter at some length, states that this intra-Court appeal may be dismissed as withdrawn as the appellants wish to file a review petition before the learned Single Judge. Sri Ramesh Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for the sole respondent is present. The Special Appeal is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. Order Date :- 24.5.2018 " Sri Ramesh Pandey, learned Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the appellants, after arguing the matter at some length, states that this intra-Court appeal may be dismissed as withdrawn as the appellants wish to file a review petition before the learned Single Judge. Sri Ramesh Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for the sole respondent is present. The Special Appeal is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. Order Date :- 24.5.2018 "

2. After withdrawing the said appeal, Review Application No.69300 of 2018 was filed before the Writ Court. The said review application came to be decided on 25.09.2019. However, this special appeal challenging the aforesaid impugned orders was filed only on 18.12.2021, therefore, even if the period utilised by the appellants in pursuing the review application, which was decided on 25.09.2019, is excluded as having being satisfactorily explained the fact of the matter is that the appeal having been filed on 18.12.2021, there is delay of a little more than two years. Whether the benefit of the orders passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 would be given to the appellant-State is also an issue. We find that the benefit of the orders passed therein were applicable only w.e.f. 15.03.2020. The time limit for filing the special appeal expired much prior to it. The time limit prescribed is one month which expired in October 2019.

3. Now when we peruse the affidavit containing the alleged explanation for the delay we find that for the period after 25.09.2019 till filing of the appeal on 18.12.2021, there is hardly any explanation which may be accepted by us.

4. The fact that in the interregnum, contempt proceedings were initiated and some of the orders passed in the contempt proceedings were put to challenge before Hon'ble the Supreme Court by means of S.L.P. [C] No.19007-19008/2018 which was ultimately converted into Civil Appeal Nos.6200-6201/2021 does not help the State because the subject matter of the special leave petition was the orders passed in the contempt proceedings. Moreover, on 04.10.2021 the said SLP was decided. The said order has been placed before us. No doubt, ultimately the orders passed in the contempt proceedings were quashed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the aforesaid Civil Appeal on 04.10.2021, but this is not at all relevant so far as filing of the special appeal against the judgment of the Writ Court dated 15.09.2017 and the order passed on the review application dated 25.09.2019 is concerned. There was nothing which stopped the appellants/State herein to challenge the said orders by filing an appeal within the limitation of one month as prescribed under the Rules of the Court or within a reasonable period or for that matter to offer a plausible and acceptable explanation for filing the appeal after more than two years.

5. In the interregnum, though the claim of the respondent for regularisation was rejected on 20.02.2018, but ultimately on 09.07.2018 the services of the respondent were regularized and the rejection order dated 20.02.2018 was withdrawn vide order dated 14.05.2018. We have perused the order of regularization of the respondent. The said order was passed subject to result of review application. As already stated, the review application had already been rejected and the same has been challenged in this appeal which has been filed with the delay of more than two years.

6. Even after perusing the affidavit in support of the application for condonation of delay, all that we find that the explanation offered therein is that the paper book was assigned to Chief Standing Counsel and thereafter the opinion was sent to the Department on 18.01.2020 by the office of Chief Standing Counsel and in furtherance of the opinion given by the Chief Standing Counsel a proposal was sent to the State Government by the Directorate of Agricultural for preferring the special appeal against the judgment and order dated 15.09.2017 passed in writ petition as well as order dated 25.09.2019 passed in the review proceeding. No date has been mentioned as to when all this happened. Even if date 18.01.2020 is taken, this does not explain the delay in filing the appeal on 18.12.2021.

7. Further in para 18 of the affidavit it has been stated that the State Government accorded necessary permission on 23.01.2020 for preferring the special appeal and in pursuance thereof the special appeal was allotted by the Chief Standing Counsel on 24.01.2020 to the Additional Chief Standing Counsel. The Additional Chief Standing Counsel returned the paper book to the Chief Standing Counsel assigning some personal reason showing unavailability in preparation of special appeal. All this hardly explains the delay as has been noticed hereinabove. When the State Government had granted the permission on 23.01.2020 why the special appeal was filed on 18.12.2021, there is no explanation. Vague averments have been made in paragraph nos.19 to 24, which do not satisfy us.

8. For all these reasons we do not find the explanation offered by the State for the delay in filing the appeal as satisfactory nor is it acceptable. Application for condonation of delay is rejected. Consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed."

7. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the respondent authorities are adamant for not complying the directions as well as observations made by the writ Court to consider the case of the applicant in terms of the Government Order as well as Rules, 2001. It is, thus, submitted that the affidavit of compliance filed today is in clear violation of the order of writ Court as well as the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal (D) No. 534 of 2021.

8. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent, while referring to the affidavit of compliance duly sworn by respondent no. 1-Mr. Jitendra Kumar Tomar, Director, Agriculture, Agricultural Directorate, U.P., Lucknow, submits that the decision has already been taken in the case of the applicant. It is further submitted that seeking compliance of the direction of the writ Court, the Contempt Application No. 338 of 2018 was preferred by the applicant. It is also submitted that the orders passed on

28.05.2018 and 10.07.2018 in the said contempt proceedings were challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal No. 19007-19008 of 2018. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, on finding that once a decision has been taken, contempt court cannot examine the case. Thereafter, aforesaid SLP was registered as Civil Appeal No. 6200-6201 of 2021, which was allowed vide order dated

04.10.2021 while setting aside the orders dated

28.05.2018 and 10.07.2018 passed in Contempt Application No. 338 of 2018.

9. Specific question having been asked from learned Additional Advocate General that as to whether the regularization order dated 09.07.2018 was passed by the then Authorities or not, as has been quoted in the earlier order passed by this Court on 29.04.2018, he accepted that it was passed. However, learned Additional Advocate General also submits that later on, order dated 10.08.2018 was passed, by which, the said order has been kept in abeyance by then Director/competent authority. The said order dated 10.08.2018 is also quoted in earlier order passed by this Court on 29.04.2025.

10. It is also informed by Shri Tripathi that thereafter, review as well as Special Appeal was also preferred by the State Government. Shri Kuldeep Pati Tripathi, thus, submits that there is no violation of the directions of the writ Court and, therefore, the contempt application may be dismissed.

11. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent and going through the record, it is evident that the regularization order dated

09.07.2018 passed by the competent authority was never brought before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which is apparent from the orders passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 27.07.2018 and 04.10.2021. It is also evident from the earlier affidavit of compliance filed by the respondent no. 1 that the regularization order dated 09.07.2018 was kept in abeyance vide order dated 10.08.2018 passed by then Director, Agriculture Directorate, Lucknow, but evidently, this fact was not brought before the Court deciding review application or before the Division Bench while deciding Special Appeal No. 534 of 2021.

12. In view of above, the application for discharge of contempt notices along with the affidavit of compliance is hereby rejected.

13. List this case on 29.05.2025 at 11.30 a.m.

14. On the next date, respondent no. 1 shall appear before this Court for the purposes of framing of charges.

15. The respondent no. 1 shall also inform as to whether the orders dated 09.07.2018 and 10.08.2018 were placed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6200- 6201 of 2021. Order Date :- 26.5.2025 VKS