Original Application No. 505 of 2024 · Allahabad High Court · 2025
Case Details
Cited in this judgment
interim relief application in OA No. 505 of 2024. The contention is that the said interim relief application has not been decided as yet, therefore, the status quo as existing on 04.09.2018 was to continue. According to him, the status quo admittedly was that the appellant was working as Stringer in Door Darshan, Lucknow. The factum of his engagement as Stringer is admitted to the respondents in Para 4 of the counter affidavit filed in the contempt proceedings. It was not the case of the respondent before the Contempt Court that the appellant was not working as Stringer on 04.09.2018 or for that matter on 14.05.2019 when the status qua order was passed in Writ Petition No. 24372 (S/S) of 2018 or for that matter on
14.05.2019 when the said writ petition was decided. Therefore, during pendency of the interim relief application in OA No. 505 of 2024 the said status quo was to continue, however, a wrong impression was given to the Contempt Court by the respondents that the substantive post of the appellant being that of PTC for which the age of superannuation is 60 years and as the appellant had attained the same in 2021, therefore, he was not entitled to continue as Stringer thereafter although the fact is that the appellant had attained the age of superannuation of 60 years while working on the post of PTC yet he was continued as Stringer.
4. The contention is that the Contempt Court has traveled beyond its jurisdiction to pass impugned order dropping the contempt proceedings, therefore, irrespective of the merits of the issues which will have to be seen by the Central Administrative Tribunal, the Contempt Court could not have entered into the merits of the matter which had not been decided by the Writ Court nor has been decided whether at the interim or final stage by the Central Administrative Tribunal.
5. Operative portion of the judgment dated 14.05.2019 passed in Writ 3 SPLA No. 430 of 2025 Petition No. 24372 (S/S) of 2018, contempt of which has been alleged by the appellants before the contempt court, reads as under:- "Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of finally permitting the petitioner to file an original application along with interim relief application before the Central Administration Tribunal with promptness, preferably within a period of fifteen days from today and if such Original Application is filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal along with Interim Relief Application, the same may be considered and decided with expedition, if possible. It is also clarified that the Central Administrative Tribunal may decide the interim relief application of the petitioners within a period of one month, if possible. Till the disposal of the interim relief application, interim protection so granted petitioners vide order dated 4.09.2018 by this Court shall continue."
6. Under the aforesaid judgment till disposal of the interim relief application by the Central Administrative Tribunal the interim protection granted to him on 04.09.2018 shall to continue. The interim order dated
04.09.2018 reads as under:- "Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned Assistant Solicitor General of India requested that this petition may be taken up on
06.09.2018 on which date he will produce the instruction the Court on the point of maintainability, today is the last day for submission of Application Form. The submission of petitioners is that in case selection is permitted to learned counsel continue, the petitioners shall be caused prejudiced 4 SPLA No. 430 of 2025 and they shall be ousted from the job. In view of the above, till the next date of listing status-quo as exists today in respect of the services of the petitioners shall be maintained. However, the petitioners are to proceed with advertisement in question and the mater shall be kept in abeyance till the final decision on the application. Put up this matter on 06.09.2018, as fresh."
7. The relief clause of the writ petition in which the said judgment and orders have been passed, copy of which is annexed at Page 126 reads as under:- "I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned Advertisement dated 01.08.2018 which is subsequently published in the Newspaper Dainik jagran Lucknow Edition dated 03/04.08.2028 and further modified as contained in Annexure No.1 and 1-B respectively to this Writ Petition; II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the Opposite Parties not to appoint Stringers in the districts where the Petitioners are working as a Part Time Correspondents in consonance of the Order passed the Prasar Bharti dated 30.08.2007 and
17.09.2009."
8. Relief-I above quoted is regarding quashing of an advertisement dated
01.08.2018 for engagement of Stringers. Relief - II was for issuance of a writ of mandamus to the opposite parties not to appoint Stringers in the districts where the petitioners are working as a part time correspondents in consonance of the order passed by the Prasar Bharti dated 30.08.2007 and 17.09.2009. 5 SPLA No. 430 of 2025
9. Similar relief as above has been prayed in the Original Application filed subsequently by the appellant bearing No. 505 of 2024. The relief clauses are at page 145 of the paper book which read as under:- "1. To quash the advertisement dated 03.08.2018 alongwith modification order dated 01.08.2018 and order dated 07.08.2018, contained as Annexure No.A-1& A-2 to this OA with all consequential benefits.
2. To direct the respondents not to appoint / engage Stringers in those District where applicants are working as Part Time Correspondents consonance of order dated 30.08.2007 and
17.09.2009 passed by Prasar Bharti. 3."
10. We asked the learned counsel for the appellant to kindly show the order of the Prashar Bharti dated 30.08.2007 and 17.09.2009 referred in relief no.- II quoted above but he has not annexed the same. Nevertheless, we have seen the pleadings corresponding to the said documents in the writ petition and the OA. Para 14 of the Writ Petition No. 24372 (S/S) of 2018, which was decided on 14.08.2019 reads as under:- "14. That it can be ascertained from the aforesaid letter dated 30.08.2007 the decisions mentioned in Para C itself shows that the DG (News) Doordarshan (News) is directed to utilize the service of the PTCs instead of Stingers whenever the PTCs are capable of filing the visual footage and this Order is to be strictly imposed and followed by the other Authorities."
11. Similar pleadings is contained in Para 11 of the O.A. No. 505 of 2024. 6 SPLA No. 430 of 2025
12. We have also perused other pleadings of Writ Petition and O.A.
13. In fact, on a reading of the pleadings of the writ petition and the OA referred hereinabove it is clear that the appellant was engaged and given the task of Stringer prior to framing of the guidelines in 2010 i.e. in 2007, by virtue of the fact that he was already functioning as PTC. In fact, this was his claim that Stringers should not be engaged separately in pursuance to the impugned advertisement in districts where PTCs were available and are doing the task of Stringers in view of orders of Prasar Bharti dated 30.08.2007 and 17.09.2009. Status quo as on 04.09.2018 was that appellant was working as PTC and by virtue of his working as PTC he was also working as Stringer. This is evident from the pleadings in the writ petition and OA quoted referred earlier.
14. Now, the question before the Contempt Court was whether status quo had been violated. In order to decide whether status quo had been violated so as to constitute contempt, learned Contempt Judge was necessarily and incidentally required to consider and decide whether appellant who had attained the age of superannuation on the post of PTC and was no longer working as such, could claim to continue to work as Stinger, even thereafter ? and if he had not been allowed to work, whether contempt of the order dated 04.09.2018 read with judgment dated 14.05.2019 was made out ? This was an issue falling for consideration of the Contempt Court incidentally in the context of the question before the Contempt Court as to whether any civil contempt of the judgment dated 14.05.2019 read with interim order dated 04.09.2018 passed in Writ Petition No. 24372 (S/S) of 2018 was made out or not.
15. Relief -II of the writ petition and the OA itself make it clear that the appellant herein was/is claiming right to continue as Stringer by virtue of 7 SPLA No. 430 of 2025 the fact that he is already working as PTC in the concerned district. Now, it is not in dispute that for the PTC the age of superannuation is 60 years. It is not in dispute that the age of superannuation for post of PTC was earlier 65 years and subsequently it became 60 years. The appellant has attained the age of superannuation. The appellant, as of now, is 69 years of age. Status quo order would continue only till the appellant attained the age of superannuation for the post of PTC. No prudent person can understand the order dated 04.09.2018 read with judgment dated
14.05.2019 to mean that, even if, the person had attained the age of superannuation on the substantive post of PTC, even then, he will continue to work as Stinger. We fail to understand as to under which law a person can continue to work as Stringer at such age (69), therefore, we do not find any fault with the Contempt Court in opining that no contempt was made out in the facts of the case. The fact that appellant had actually continued as Stringer even after attaining the age of superannuation on his substantive post of PTC, does not by itself entitle him to continue further. The appellant is fortunate enough for having worked even after attaining the age of superannuation of 60/65 years. We say no more. We do not find any error in the order of the Contempt Court. It is not without jurisdiction. In fact, the Contempt Court was well within its rights to take the aforesaid view in view of the exception carved out by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Chunilal Nanda and Ors. reported in (2006) 5 SCC 399 in Para 11-IV to the effect which reads as under:- "IV. Any direction issued or decision made by the High court on the merits of a dispute between the parties, will not be in the exercise of "jurisdiction to punish for contempt" and, therefore, not 8 SPLA No. 430 of 2025 appealable under Section 19 of the CC Act. The only exception is where such direction or decision is incidental to or inextricably connected with the order punishing for contempt, in which event the appeal under Section 19 of the Act, can also encompass the incidental or inextricably connected directions."
16. The Contempt Court has only entered into and expressed its opinion on an incidental issue which was inextricably connected with the order contempt of which was alleged, therefore, it has not transgressed its jurisdiction.
17. The special appeal is dismissed in the aforesaid terms. December 10, 2025 R.K.P. (Indrajeet Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) RAJ KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
interim relief application in OA No. 505 of 2024. The contention is that the said interim relief application has not been decided as yet, therefore, the status quo as existing on 04.09.2018 was to continue. According to him, the status quo admittedly was that the appellant was working as Stringer in Door Darshan, Lucknow. The factum of his engagement as Stringer is admitted to the respondents in Para 4 of the counter affidavit filed in the contempt proceedings. It was not the case of the respondent before the Contempt Court that the appellant was not working as Stringer on 04.09.2018 or for that matter on 14.05.2019 when the status qua order was passed in Writ Petition No. 24372 (S/S) of 2018 or for that matter on
14.05.2019 when the said writ petition was decided. Therefore, during pendency of the interim relief application in OA No. 505 of 2024 the said status quo was to continue, however, a wrong impression was given to the Contempt Court by the respondents that the substantive post of the appellant being that of PTC for which the age of superannuation is 60 years and as the appellant had attained the same in 2021, therefore, he was not entitled to continue as Stringer thereafter although the fact is that the appellant had attained the age of superannuation of 60 years while working on the post of PTC yet he was continued as Stringer.
4. The contention is that the Contempt Court has traveled beyond its jurisdiction to pass impugned order dropping the contempt proceedings, therefore, irrespective of the merits of the issues which will have to be seen by the Central Administrative Tribunal, the Contempt Court could not have entered into the merits of the matter which had not been decided by the Writ Court nor has been decided whether at the interim or final stage by the Central Administrative Tribunal.
5. Operative portion of the judgment dated 14.05.2019 passed in Writ 3 SPLA No. 430 of 2025 Petition No. 24372 (S/S) of 2018, contempt of which has been alleged by the appellants before the contempt court, reads as under:- "Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of finally permitting the petitioner to file an original application along with interim relief application before the Central Administration Tribunal with promptness, preferably within a period of fifteen days from today and if such Original Application is filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal along with Interim Relief Application, the same may be considered and decided with expedition, if possible. It is also clarified that the Central Administrative Tribunal may decide the interim relief application of the petitioners within a period of one month, if possible. Till the disposal of the interim relief application, interim protection so granted petitioners vide order dated 4.09.2018 by this Court shall continue."
6. Under the aforesaid judgment till disposal of the interim relief application by the Central Administrative Tribunal the interim protection granted to him on 04.09.2018 shall to continue. The interim order dated
04.09.2018 reads as under:- "Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned Assistant Solicitor General of India requested that this petition may be taken up on
06.09.2018 on which date he will produce the instruction the Court on the point of maintainability, today is the last day for submission of Application Form. The submission of petitioners is that in case selection is permitted to learned counsel continue, the petitioners shall be caused prejudiced 4 SPLA No. 430 of 2025 and they shall be ousted from the job. In view of the above, till the next date of listing status-quo as exists today in respect of the services of the petitioners shall be maintained. However, the petitioners are to proceed with advertisement in question and the mater shall be kept in abeyance till the final decision on the application. Put up this matter on 06.09.2018, as fresh."
7. The relief clause of the writ petition in which the said judgment and orders have been passed, copy of which is annexed at Page 126 reads as under:- "I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned Advertisement dated 01.08.2018 which is subsequently published in the Newspaper Dainik jagran Lucknow Edition dated 03/04.08.2028 and further modified as contained in Annexure No.1 and 1-B respectively to this Writ Petition; II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the Opposite Parties not to appoint Stringers in the districts where the Petitioners are working as a Part Time Correspondents in consonance of the Order passed the Prasar Bharti dated 30.08.2007 and
17.09.2009."
8. Relief-I above quoted is regarding quashing of an advertisement dated
01.08.2018 for engagement of Stringers. Relief - II was for issuance of a writ of mandamus to the opposite parties not to appoint Stringers in the districts where the petitioners are working as a part time correspondents in consonance of the order passed by the Prasar Bharti dated 30.08.2007 and 17.09.2009. 5 SPLA No. 430 of 2025
9. Similar relief as above has been prayed in the Original Application filed subsequently by the appellant bearing No. 505 of 2024. The relief clauses are at page 145 of the paper book which read as under:- "1. To quash the advertisement dated 03.08.2018 alongwith modification order dated 01.08.2018 and order dated 07.08.2018, contained as Annexure No.A-1& A-2 to this OA with all consequential benefits.
2. To direct the respondents not to appoint / engage Stringers in those District where applicants are working as Part Time Correspondents consonance of order dated 30.08.2007 and
17.09.2009 passed by Prasar Bharti. 3."
10. We asked the learned counsel for the appellant to kindly show the order of the Prashar Bharti dated 30.08.2007 and 17.09.2009 referred in relief no.- II quoted above but he has not annexed the same. Nevertheless, we have seen the pleadings corresponding to the said documents in the writ petition and the OA. Para 14 of the Writ Petition No. 24372 (S/S) of 2018, which was decided on 14.08.2019 reads as under:- "14. That it can be ascertained from the aforesaid letter dated 30.08.2007 the decisions mentioned in Para C itself shows that the DG (News) Doordarshan (News) is directed to utilize the service of the PTCs instead of Stingers whenever the PTCs are capable of filing the visual footage and this Order is to be strictly imposed and followed by the other Authorities."
11. Similar pleadings is contained in Para 11 of the O.A. No. 505 of 2024. 6 SPLA No. 430 of 2025
12. We have also perused other pleadings of Writ Petition and O.A.
13. In fact, on a reading of the pleadings of the writ petition and the OA referred hereinabove it is clear that the appellant was engaged and given the task of Stringer prior to framing of the guidelines in 2010 i.e. in 2007, by virtue of the fact that he was already functioning as PTC. In fact, this was his claim that Stringers should not be engaged separately in pursuance to the impugned advertisement in districts where PTCs were available and are doing the task of Stringers in view of orders of Prasar Bharti dated 30.08.2007 and 17.09.2009. Status quo as on 04.09.2018 was that appellant was working as PTC and by virtue of his working as PTC he was also working as Stringer. This is evident from the pleadings in the writ petition and OA quoted referred earlier.
14. Now, the question before the Contempt Court was whether status quo had been violated. In order to decide whether status quo had been violated so as to constitute contempt, learned Contempt Judge was necessarily and incidentally required to consider and decide whether appellant who had attained the age of superannuation on the post of PTC and was no longer working as such, could claim to continue to work as Stinger, even thereafter ? and if he had not been allowed to work, whether contempt of the order dated 04.09.2018 read with judgment dated 14.05.2019 was made out ? This was an issue falling for consideration of the Contempt Court incidentally in the context of the question before the Contempt Court as to whether any civil contempt of the judgment dated 14.05.2019 read with interim order dated 04.09.2018 passed in Writ Petition No. 24372 (S/S) of 2018 was made out or not.
15. Relief -II of the writ petition and the OA itself make it clear that the appellant herein was/is claiming right to continue as Stringer by virtue of 7 SPLA No. 430 of 2025 the fact that he is already working as PTC in the concerned district. Now, it is not in dispute that for the PTC the age of superannuation is 60 years. It is not in dispute that the age of superannuation for post of PTC was earlier 65 years and subsequently it became 60 years. The appellant has attained the age of superannuation. The appellant, as of now, is 69 years of age. Status quo order would continue only till the appellant attained the age of superannuation for the post of PTC. No prudent person can understand the order dated 04.09.2018 read with judgment dated
14.05.2019 to mean that, even if, the person had attained the age of superannuation on the substantive post of PTC, even then, he will continue to work as Stinger. We fail to understand as to under which law a person can continue to work as Stringer at such age (69), therefore, we do not find any fault with the Contempt Court in opining that no contempt was made out in the facts of the case. The fact that appellant had actually continued as Stringer even after attaining the age of superannuation on his substantive post of PTC, does not by itself entitle him to continue further. The appellant is fortunate enough for having worked even after attaining the age of superannuation of 60/65 years. We say no more. We do not find any error in the order of the Contempt Court. It is not without jurisdiction. In fact, the Contempt Court was well within its rights to take the aforesaid view in view of the exception carved out by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Chunilal Nanda and Ors. reported in (2006) 5 SCC 399 in Para 11-IV to the effect which reads as under:- "IV. Any direction issued or decision made by the High court on the merits of a dispute between the parties, will not be in the exercise of "jurisdiction to punish for contempt" and, therefore, not 8 SPLA No. 430 of 2025 appealable under Section 19 of the CC Act. The only exception is where such direction or decision is incidental to or inextricably connected with the order punishing for contempt, in which event the appeal under Section 19 of the Act, can also encompass the incidental or inextricably connected directions."
16. The Contempt Court has only entered into and expressed its opinion on an incidental issue which was inextricably connected with the order contempt of which was alleged, therefore, it has not transgressed its jurisdiction.
17. The special appeal is dismissed in the aforesaid terms. December 10, 2025 R.K.P. (Indrajeet Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) RAJ KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench