U.P. State Food And Essential Commodities Corporation Ltd. Lko & Anr v. Mohd. Taiyyab and Anr
Case Details
Cited in this judgment
2. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent, what comes out is that by means of this special appeal, the petitioner-Corporation has challenged an order dated 08.07.2025 passed by the contempt judge in Contempt Application No.4167 of 2024 asserting that entire proceedings before the contempt judge including initiation of contempt proceedings are without jurisdiction. The submission is that the tribunal allowed the claim petition of the respondent vide judgment dated 10.12.2021 quashing the order dated 17.03.2018 declining the claim of the respondent for regularization of his services with a further direction to consider the claim in terms of rules known as Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Daily Wages Appointments on Group 'D' Posts Rules, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 2001'). This judgment was put to challenge by the appellants herein before the High Court by means of Writ-A No.1813 of 2022 [ U.P. State Food And Essential Commodities Corporation Ltd. Lko & Anr. vs. Mohd. Taiyyab and Anr.] which was decided on 31.07.2024. The writ petition of the appellants was dismissed by the Division Bench and the judgment of the tribunal was affirmed. One month's time was granted to the appellants herein to comply the judgment of the tribunal referred hereinabove. In compliance thereof, rightly or wrongly, the appellants herein passed a detailed order dated 20.12.2024. Thereafter, a contempt petition bearing Contempt Application No.4167 of 2024 was filed wherein the impugned order has been passed. Prior to it, during pendency of the above mentioned writ petition filed by the appellants, contempt proceedings had been initiated by the respondent for alleged non-compliance of judgment of the tribunal. However, on account of passing of an interim order in the aforesaid writ petition, the contempt proceedings remained pending before the tribunal. Be that as it may, once the writ petition was decided and the compliance order was passed as mentioned hereinabove, another contempt petition was filed albeit before the High Court on the ground that the order of the appellants was in the teeth of the findings/ observations made by the tribunal and the High Court especially with regard to the applicability of the Rules, 2001. The appellants herein filed a compliance report after receiving notice in the contempt proceedings before the High Court which has led to the order dated 08.07.2025 by which the said compliance has been rejected on the ground that both the tribunal and the High Court had directed for consideration of respondent's claim for regularization in terms of the Rules, 2001, therefore, it was not open for the appellants herein who are the alleged contemnors before the contempt judge to take the plea that the Rules, 2001 were not applicable.
3. The contention of Sri Ashit Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants is that this was not the only ground on which the entitlement of the respondent to regularization has been rejected, a fact which has been lost sight of by the contempt judge. He sought to address us on the merits of the matter but we pointed out that a special appeal would be maintainable against an order passed by the contempt judge only if the same is without jurisdiction, meaning thereby, merely because the order of the contempt judge is wrong that by itself may not make the special appeal maintainable before us as in that eventuality, the remedy, if any, would be before Hon'ble the Supreme Court by means of special leave petition. He then argued that initiation of contempt proceedings before the High Court itself was without jurisdiction because such contempt proceedings had already been initiated albeit prior to disposal of writ petition alleging non-compliance of judgment of the tribunal which remained pending during the pendency of the writ petition, therefore, if after its disposal and the compliance as claimed by the appellants, the respondent is of the opinion that inspite of it, contempt has been committed by the appellants then the said proceedings before the tribunal could have been pursued further but in view of a decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court reported in (2014) 16 SCC 88 'Dineshan K K vs. R.K. Singh & Anr.' it was not fair nor justified nor legal to initiate such proceedings before the High Court afresh during the pendency of the earlier proceedings. In that sense, he says the second proceedings are without jurisdiction. At this stage, it is informed that the appellants have filed an application seeking review of the judgment of the tribunal after disposal of the writ petition.
4. Considering the entire scenario, purely in the facts of this case, we are of the opinion that the contempt proceedings which had already been initiated and are still pending before the tribunal, should be pursued by the respondent herein bringing on record all such documents which according to him and taking such pleas as may be permissible and which make out a case of contempt against the appellant. Two proceedings in respect of the same matter even if the first one having been initiated prior to the judgment of the writ court and the subsequent one after rendering of the judgment, is not justified nor permissible especially for the reason that the writ court did not add something more to what had already been said by the tribunal while allowing the claim petition of the respondent. We, therefore, quash the contempt proceedings bearing Contempt Application No.4167 of 2024 before the High Court without prejudice, however, to the rights of the respondent herein, if any, to pursue the contempt proceedings before the tribunal, if there is a cause.
5. Accordingly, the special appeal is allowed. (Manish Kumar,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Order Date :- 4.8.2025 Shanu/- SHANU SUMAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
2. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent, what comes out is that by means of this special appeal, the petitioner-Corporation has challenged an order dated 08.07.2025 passed by the contempt judge in Contempt Application No.4167 of 2024 asserting that entire proceedings before the contempt judge including initiation of contempt proceedings are without jurisdiction. The submission is that the tribunal allowed the claim petition of the respondent vide judgment dated 10.12.2021 quashing the order dated 17.03.2018 declining the claim of the respondent for regularization of his services with a further direction to consider the claim in terms of rules known as Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Daily Wages Appointments on Group 'D' Posts Rules, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 2001'). This judgment was put to challenge by the appellants herein before the High Court by means of Writ-A No.1813 of 2022 [ U.P. State Food And Essential Commodities Corporation Ltd. Lko & Anr. vs. Mohd. Taiyyab and Anr.] which was decided on 31.07.2024. The writ petition of the appellants was dismissed by the Division Bench and the judgment of the tribunal was affirmed. One month's time was granted to the appellants herein to comply the judgment of the tribunal referred hereinabove. In compliance thereof, rightly or wrongly, the appellants herein passed a detailed order dated 20.12.2024. Thereafter, a contempt petition bearing Contempt Application No.4167 of 2024 was filed wherein the impugned order has been passed. Prior to it, during pendency of the above mentioned writ petition filed by the appellants, contempt proceedings had been initiated by the respondent for alleged non-compliance of judgment of the tribunal. However, on account of passing of an interim order in the aforesaid writ petition, the contempt proceedings remained pending before the tribunal. Be that as it may, once the writ petition was decided and the compliance order was passed as mentioned hereinabove, another contempt petition was filed albeit before the High Court on the ground that the order of the appellants was in the teeth of the findings/ observations made by the tribunal and the High Court especially with regard to the applicability of the Rules, 2001. The appellants herein filed a compliance report after receiving notice in the contempt proceedings before the High Court which has led to the order dated 08.07.2025 by which the said compliance has been rejected on the ground that both the tribunal and the High Court had directed for consideration of respondent's claim for regularization in terms of the Rules, 2001, therefore, it was not open for the appellants herein who are the alleged contemnors before the contempt judge to take the plea that the Rules, 2001 were not applicable.
3. The contention of Sri Ashit Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants is that this was not the only ground on which the entitlement of the respondent to regularization has been rejected, a fact which has been lost sight of by the contempt judge. He sought to address us on the merits of the matter but we pointed out that a special appeal would be maintainable against an order passed by the contempt judge only if the same is without jurisdiction, meaning thereby, merely because the order of the contempt judge is wrong that by itself may not make the special appeal maintainable before us as in that eventuality, the remedy, if any, would be before Hon'ble the Supreme Court by means of special leave petition. He then argued that initiation of contempt proceedings before the High Court itself was without jurisdiction because such contempt proceedings had already been initiated albeit prior to disposal of writ petition alleging non-compliance of judgment of the tribunal which remained pending during the pendency of the writ petition, therefore, if after its disposal and the compliance as claimed by the appellants, the respondent is of the opinion that inspite of it, contempt has been committed by the appellants then the said proceedings before the tribunal could have been pursued further but in view of a decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court reported in (2014) 16 SCC 88 'Dineshan K K vs. R.K. Singh & Anr.' it was not fair nor justified nor legal to initiate such proceedings before the High Court afresh during the pendency of the earlier proceedings. In that sense, he says the second proceedings are without jurisdiction. At this stage, it is informed that the appellants have filed an application seeking review of the judgment of the tribunal after disposal of the writ petition.
4. Considering the entire scenario, purely in the facts of this case, we are of the opinion that the contempt proceedings which had already been initiated and are still pending before the tribunal, should be pursued by the respondent herein bringing on record all such documents which according to him and taking such pleas as may be permissible and which make out a case of contempt against the appellant. Two proceedings in respect of the same matter even if the first one having been initiated prior to the judgment of the writ court and the subsequent one after rendering of the judgment, is not justified nor permissible especially for the reason that the writ court did not add something more to what had already been said by the tribunal while allowing the claim petition of the respondent. We, therefore, quash the contempt proceedings bearing Contempt Application No.4167 of 2024 before the High Court without prejudice, however, to the rights of the respondent herein, if any, to pursue the contempt proceedings before the tribunal, if there is a cause.
5. Accordingly, the special appeal is allowed. (Manish Kumar,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Order Date :- 4.8.2025 Shanu/- SHANU SUMAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench