Krishna Murari Tripathi And Others v. Sri Rakesh Kumar Mishra, Milk Commissioner Dairy Development Lko. And Another

Sri Rakesh Kumar Mishra, Milk Commissioner Dairy Development Lko. And Another .....Applicant(s) .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s) Pradeep Kumar Tripathi : : Lalit Shukla Court No. - 8 HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J.

1. Compliance affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no.3, which is taken on record.

2. The dispute which was before the Writ Court was that the applicant are entitled for the post retiral benefit as per 19 and 24 years ACPs.

3. The present contempt application has been preferred for alleged non- compliance of judgement and order dated 06.02.2024 passed in Writ A No.9688 of 2024, the relevant extract of the order is quoted hereinbelow : "8. In view of aforesaid, the impugned order dated 30th November, 2023 is hereby quashed by issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari only to the extent it denies payment of admissible dues to petitioners due to financial crunch. The opposite parties 2 and 4 i.e. Milk Commissioner/Registrar, Milk Co-operative Societies, Lucknow and General Manager, Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Limited, Ahmadpur Asrouli Bamrauli, Prayagraj respectively are directed to take a decision with regard to grant of such benefits to petitioners upon completion of satisfactory service for the aforesaid time period. Such consideration shall be made by the opposite parties collectively within a period of eight weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the concerned authorities. In case petitioners are found entitled for the said benefits, actual benefit thereof shall also be ensured within a period of three months thereafter. "

4. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that Special Appeal No.114/2025 (Milk Producer Cooperative Union Ltd. thru. General manager vs. Managing Director Pradieshik Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd and 2 others), preferred against the order of learned Single Judge in the identical matter, which has been allowed by the Division Bench of this Court and the judgement and order passed by learned Single Judge for payment of promotional pay scale has been set aside and held that applying the ACPs at the end of 19 years and 24 years service, itself is not enforceable, the direction given by the learned Single Judge for making 2 CAPL No. 2850 of 2024 payment, irrespective of the financial condition, cannot be sustained and allowed the Special Appeal by setting aside the judgement passed by the learned Single Judge by considering other grounds also.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the judgement which has been relied upon by the respondent is not against the judgment passed in favour of the applicants passed by by the learned Single Judge, but he is unable to dispute the submission made by learned counsel for the respondent that the applicants are the employees of the same union, who had filed a separate writ petition raising the same claim as raised by the petitioniers of the another similar writ petition.

6. It is also not disputed by the learned counsel for the applicants that there are directions which were given in the case of the applicants almost same to the direction had been given in the case of other employees against whom the special appeal i.e. Special Appeal No.114 of 2025 was preferred and was allowed.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent has drawn the attention of this Court to the judgement and order dated 20.03.2025 passed in Special Appeal No.114 of 2025 which is not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellants, the relevant paras of the same are quoted hereinbelow: "15. The Government Circular clearly provides that the benefits would not be applicable automatically and keeping in view the financial condition after seeking approval of the Milk Commissioner / Registrar, the same be applied.

16. In the present case, despite passing of the resolution by the Milk Union on 13.07.2021, there has been no approval by the Milk Commissioner / Registrar.

17. Besides the above, the provisions of Rule 3(2)(b) of the Regulations, 1975, inter alia, provides that enhancement of pay scale may be made by the Society only after approval of the Registrar, has been obtained.

18. In view thereof, as the resolution passed applying the ACPs at the end of 19 years and 24 years' service, itself is not enforceable, the direction given by the learned Single Judge for making payment, irrespective of the financial condition, cannot be sustained. .

20. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The order passed by learned Single Judge dated 01.02.2024 is set aside. No order as to costs."

8. In the Special Appeal No.114 of 2025 the learned Division Bench while dealing with almost identical matter and the order under the Appeal held that at the end of 19 years and 24 years service, itself is not 3 CAPL No. 2850 of 2024 enforceable, the direction given by the learned Single Judge for making payment, irrespective of the financial condition, cannot be sustained.

9. The respondent seems to have been influenced by the judicial verdict in the Special Appeal No.114 of 2025 holding the financial crunch in the same institution namely Pradeshik Cooperative Milk Dairy Federation as well as other grounds for allowing the Special Appeal by setting aside the order of the Single Judge which was in the similar terms as passed in the case of present applicants by the learned Single Judge.

10. Thus the authorities considering the verdict in the Special Appeal that there is no means available to the respondents to make payment, feel helpless to make payment to the applicant and it cannot be said that there is any wilful disobedience of the order passed by the Writ Court. The respondent considered the finding of learned Division Bench in Special Appeal. The applicants and the petitioners of the other writ petition out of which Special Appeal No.114 of 2025 arose both set of petitioners were / are working in the same i.e. Milk Producer Cooperative Union Ltd. in same district and has raised the similar dispute which is common in both the sets of writ petition. In one set Special Appeal was preferred recording the findings as stated above. Hence, it cannot be said to have willfully intentionally disobeyed the order. However, it is open for the applicants to resort to any other legal remedy for payment of their dues, if permissible under the law.

10. In view of the facts and discussion made hereinabove, the contempt application is dismissed.

11. Notice issued earlier, if any, stands discharged. October 17, 2025 S. Kumar (Manish Kumar,J.) SANTOSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sri Rakesh Kumar Mishra, Milk Commissioner Dairy Development Lko. And Another .....Applicant(s) .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s) Pradeep Kumar Tripathi : : Lalit Shukla Court No. - 8 HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J.

1. Compliance affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no.3, which is taken on record.

2. The dispute which was before the Writ Court was that the applicant are entitled for the post retiral benefit as per 19 and 24 years ACPs.

3. The present contempt application has been preferred for alleged non- compliance of judgement and order dated 06.02.2024 passed in Writ A No.9688 of 2024, the relevant extract of the order is quoted hereinbelow : "8. In view of aforesaid, the impugned order dated 30th November, 2023 is hereby quashed by issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari only to the extent it denies payment of admissible dues to petitioners due to financial crunch. The opposite parties 2 and 4 i.e. Milk Commissioner/Registrar, Milk Co-operative Societies, Lucknow and General Manager, Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Limited, Ahmadpur Asrouli Bamrauli, Prayagraj respectively are directed to take a decision with regard to grant of such benefits to petitioners upon completion of satisfactory service for the aforesaid time period. Such consideration shall be made by the opposite parties collectively within a period of eight weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the concerned authorities. In case petitioners are found entitled for the said benefits, actual benefit thereof shall also be ensured within a period of three months thereafter. "

4. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that Special Appeal No.114/2025 (Milk Producer Cooperative Union Ltd. thru. General manager vs. Managing Director Pradieshik Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd and 2 others), preferred against the order of learned Single Judge in the identical matter, which has been allowed by the Division Bench of this Court and the judgement and order passed by learned Single Judge for payment of promotional pay scale has been set aside and held that applying the ACPs at the end of 19 years and 24 years service, itself is not enforceable, the direction given by the learned Single Judge for making 2 CAPL No. 2850 of 2024 payment, irrespective of the financial condition, cannot be sustained and allowed the Special Appeal by setting aside the judgement passed by the learned Single Judge by considering other grounds also.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the judgement which has been relied upon by the respondent is not against the judgment passed in favour of the applicants passed by by the learned Single Judge, but he is unable to dispute the submission made by learned counsel for the respondent that the applicants are the employees of the same union, who had filed a separate writ petition raising the same claim as raised by the petitioniers of the another similar writ petition.

6. It is also not disputed by the learned counsel for the applicants that there are directions which were given in the case of the applicants almost same to the direction had been given in the case of other employees against whom the special appeal i.e. Special Appeal No.114 of 2025 was preferred and was allowed.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent has drawn the attention of this Court to the judgement and order dated 20.03.2025 passed in Special Appeal No.114 of 2025 which is not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellants, the relevant paras of the same are quoted hereinbelow: "15. The Government Circular clearly provides that the benefits would not be applicable automatically and keeping in view the financial condition after seeking approval of the Milk Commissioner / Registrar, the same be applied.

16. In the present case, despite passing of the resolution by the Milk Union on 13.07.2021, there has been no approval by the Milk Commissioner / Registrar.

17. Besides the above, the provisions of Rule 3(2)(b) of the Regulations, 1975, inter alia, provides that enhancement of pay scale may be made by the Society only after approval of the Registrar, has been obtained.

18. In view thereof, as the resolution passed applying the ACPs at the end of 19 years and 24 years' service, itself is not enforceable, the direction given by the learned Single Judge for making payment, irrespective of the financial condition, cannot be sustained. .

20. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The order passed by learned Single Judge dated 01.02.2024 is set aside. No order as to costs."

8. In the Special Appeal No.114 of 2025 the learned Division Bench while dealing with almost identical matter and the order under the Appeal held that at the end of 19 years and 24 years service, itself is not 3 CAPL No. 2850 of 2024 enforceable, the direction given by the learned Single Judge for making payment, irrespective of the financial condition, cannot be sustained.

9. The respondent seems to have been influenced by the judicial verdict in the Special Appeal No.114 of 2025 holding the financial crunch in the same institution namely Pradeshik Cooperative Milk Dairy Federation as well as other grounds for allowing the Special Appeal by setting aside the order of the Single Judge which was in the similar terms as passed in the case of present applicants by the learned Single Judge.

10. Thus the authorities considering the verdict in the Special Appeal that there is no means available to the respondents to make payment, feel helpless to make payment to the applicant and it cannot be said that there is any wilful disobedience of the order passed by the Writ Court. The respondent considered the finding of learned Division Bench in Special Appeal. The applicants and the petitioners of the other writ petition out of which Special Appeal No.114 of 2025 arose both set of petitioners were / are working in the same i.e. Milk Producer Cooperative Union Ltd. in same district and has raised the similar dispute which is common in both the sets of writ petition. In one set Special Appeal was preferred recording the findings as stated above. Hence, it cannot be said to have willfully intentionally disobeyed the order. However, it is open for the applicants to resort to any other legal remedy for payment of their dues, if permissible under the law.

10. In view of the facts and discussion made hereinabove, the contempt application is dismissed.

11. Notice issued earlier, if any, stands discharged. October 17, 2025 S. Kumar (Manish Kumar,J.) SANTOSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench