# Alok Kumar Yadav v. Sri Ashish Kumar Pandey

- **Citation:** (2025) 8 ILRA 612
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-08-28
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 788 of 2025
- **Bench:** Arun Bhansali, C.J. Kshitij Shailendra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/alok-kumar-yadav-v-sri-ashish-kumar-pandey-53737
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

order of Single Judge declining to initiate
contempt proceeding.

Headnotes
(A) Contempt Law - Appeal against
dismissal of contempt - Maintainability -
Order was passed declining to initiate
proceeding
for
contempt
-
Validity
challenged
-
Appellant
relied
upon
Tasneem Fatima's case passed by Division
Bench
- Binding
effect
of
Tasneem
Fatima's case as president felt into
consideration:
Held : Appeal against order passed refusing to
initiate proceedings for contempt/dropping of
contempt proceedings is not maintainable
except for exception carved out in the case of
Midnapore (Supreme Court) - So far as the
judgement in the case of Tanseem Fatima is
concerned, the Division Bench without referring
to any of the binding precedents came to the
conclusion that the judgement in the case of
Midnapore on the question of maintainability of
Special Appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the
Rules of 1952, has no application and provisions
of Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of 1952 do
not bar appeal against order dismissing the
contempt petition, which judgement apparently
on account of ignoring binding precedents is per
incuriam and cannot be pressed into service as
a precedent. [Paras 15 and 16] (E-1)

Case Law Cited
Tasneem Fatima v. Sri Amit Mohan Mishra: 2025
: AHC-LKO:11415-DB; Midnapore Peoples' Cooperative Bank Ltd. & Ors. v. Chunilal Nanda &
Ors., (2006) 5 SCC 399; Jagdamba Prasad v.
Balgovind and 10 Others, 2016: AHC:77023-DB;
Sheo Charan v. Naval and Others, 1997 SCC
OnLine All 1136; Hub Lal Yadav v. Mahendra
and Others, 2017 ADJOnline 0638; Vinod Kumar
Gupta and Ors. v. Veer Bahadur Yadav and Ors.,
2023 (7) ADJ 107; Subhash Chandra v. Srikant
Goswami Posted Managing Director, Sahkari
Gram Vikas Bank Ltd. Lucknow And 2 Others,
2024:AHC-LKO:58884-DB; Bhanu Pratap Singh
VS. Vikrant Vir and Ors.: 2025:AHC:4796-DB -
referred to.

List of Acts
Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 - Ch. VIII R.
5; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - S. 19.

List of Keywords
Wilful disobedience; Dismissal of contempt
application; Maintainability of appeal; President;
Binding effect; Per incuriam.

Case Arising From
Judgment and Order dated 30.07.2025 passed
in Contempt Application (Civil) no. 3759 of

## Text

612 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
judgement of the writ court, denying salary
to them on the principle of 'no work no
pay', albeit the respondents were at fault,
would be too harsh.

14. The principle of 'no work no pay'
is not of universal application, but depends
on facts of each case. As in the instant case,
though, the appellants were ready and
willing to offer their services, but were
prevented from so doing by the respondents
themselves, they cannot be permitted to
take shelter behind the doctrine of 'no work
no pay'.

15. The view taken by us also finds
support from the judgement of Supreme
Court in Sobha Ram Raturi vs. Haryana
Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. and Others,
2016 (16) SCC 663. In the said case, the
employee was due to retire on 31.12.2005,
but he was illegally retired on 31.12.2002.
The order of retirement was quashed by the
writ court, but back wages was denied on
the principle of 'no work no pay'. The order
of writ court was upheld by the Division
Bench of the High Court in Letters Patent
Appeal. The Supreme Court, in challenge
to the aforesaid judgments by the employee
held that the employer being at fault, the
employee cannot be denied wages for the
period in question on the principle of 'no
work no pay'. The relevant observations
contained in this behalf in paragraphs 3 and
4 are extracted below:

3. Having given our thoughtful
consideration to the controversy, we are
satisfied, that after the impugned order of
retirement dated 31-12-2002 was set aside,
the
appellant
was
entitled
to
all
consequential benefits. The fault lies with
the respondents in not having utilised the
services of the appellant for the period from
1-1-2003 to 31-12-2005. Had the appellant
been allowed to continue in service, he
would have readily discharged his duties.
Having restrained him from rendering his
services with effect from 1-1-2003 to 3112-2005, the respondent cannot be allowed
to press the self-serving plea of denying
him wages for the period in question, on
the plea of the principle of "no work no
pay".

4. For the reasons recorded
hereinabove, we are satisfied, that the
impugned order passed by the High Court,
to the limited extent of denying wages to
the appellant, for the period from 1-1-2003
to 31-12-2005 deserves to be set aside. The
same is accordingly hereby set aside."

16. In view of the above, we allow the
instant appeal and set aside the judgment of
learned Single Judge, to the extent, it
denies salary for the period 20.02.2024 to
15.10.2024.

17. We direct the respondents to pay
salary to the appellants from 20.02.2024,
the date on which, period of three weeks
expired from the date of judgment of
learned Single Judge i.e., 29.01.2024.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 612
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, C.J.
THE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA,J.

Special Appeal No. 788 of 2025

Alok Kumar Yadav ...Appellant
Versus
Sri Ashish Kumar Pandey ...Respondent

Counsel
for
the
Appellant:
8 All. Alok Kumar Yadav Vs. Sri Ashish Kumar Pandey
613
Ashish Agrawal, Uttam Singh

Counsel for the Respondent:

Issue for Consideration
Maintainability of Special Appeal against the
order of Single Judge declining to initiate
contempt proceeding.

Headnotes
(A) Contempt Law - Appeal against
dismissal of contempt - Maintainability -
Order was passed declining to initiate
proceeding
for
contempt
-
Validity
challenged
-
Appellant
relied
upon
Tasneem Fatima's case passed by Division
Bench
- Binding
effect
of
Tasneem
Fatima's case as president felt into
consideration:
Held : Appeal against order passed refusing to
initiate proceedings for contempt/dropping of
contempt proceedings is not maintainable
except for exception carved out in the case of
Midnapore (Supreme Court) - So far as the
judgement in the case of Tanseem Fatima is
concerned, the Division Bench without referring
to any of the binding precedents came to the
conclusion that the judgement in the case of
Midnapore on the question of maintainability of
Special Appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the
Rules of 1952, has no application and provisions
of Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of 1952 do
not bar appeal against order dismissing the
contempt petition, which judgement apparently
on account of ignoring binding precedents is per
incuriam and cannot be pressed into service as
a precedent. [Paras 15 and 16] (E-1)

Case Law Cited
Tasneem Fatima v. Sri Amit Mohan Mishra: 2025
: AHC-LKO:11415-DB; Midnapore Peoples' Cooperative Bank Ltd. & Ors. v. Chunilal Nanda &
Ors., (2006) 5 SCC 399; Jagdamba Prasad v.
Balgovind and 10 Others, 2016: AHC:77023-DB;
Sheo Charan v. Naval and Others, 1997 SCC
OnLine All 1136; Hub Lal Yadav v. Mahendra
and Others, 2017 ADJOnline 0638; Vinod Kumar
Gupta and Ors. v. Veer Bahadur Yadav and Ors.,
2023 (7) ADJ 107; Subhash Chandra v. Srikant
Goswami Posted Managing Director, Sahkari
Gram Vikas Bank Ltd. Lucknow And 2 Others,
2024:AHC-LKO:58884-DB; Bhanu Pratap Singh
VS. Vikrant Vir and Ors.: 2025:AHC:4796-DB -
referred to.

List of Acts
Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 - Ch. VIII R.
5; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - S. 19.

List of Keywords
Wilful disobedience; Dismissal of contempt
application; Maintainability of appeal; President;
Binding effect; Per incuriam.

Case Arising From
Judgment and Order dated 30.07.2025 passed
in Contempt Application (Civil) no. 3759 of
2025.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Bhansali, C.J.
&
Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra, J.)

1. This appeal under Chapter VIII
Rule 5 of Allahabad High Court Rules,
1952 (for short, 'the Rules of 1952') is
directed against order dated 30.07.2025
passed
by
learned
Single
Judge
in
Contempt Application (Civil) No. 3759 of
2025 whereby, the learned Single Judge
based on the order passed qua which
contempt was alleged, pleadings in the
affidavit and the documents annexed with
the same came to the conclusion that the
same
did
not
reveal
any
wilful
disobedience and consequently dismissed
the contempt application.

2. At the outset, learned counsel for
the appellant was put to a query pertaining
to the maintainability of the appeal as
office has raised objection in this regard.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant,
by relying on an order of co-ordinate Bench
of this Court in Tasneem Fatima Vs. Sri
Amit
Mohan
Mishra:
2025:AHCLKO:11415-DB, made submissions that
the Division Bench with reference to the
614 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
provisions contained in Chapter VIII Rule
5 of the Rules of 1952 has come to the
conclusion that there is no bar in
maintaining
the
special
appeal
and,
therefore,
the
special
appeal
is
maintainable.

4. An attempt was made to make
submissions pertaining to the merits of the
case so as to question the dismissal of the
contempt application.

5.
We
have
considered
the
submissions made by learned counsel for
the appellant and have perused the order
passed in the case of Tasneem Fatima
(supra).

6. The issue of maintainability of
appeal against dismissal of contempt
application under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of
the Rules of 1952, is not a new issue. The
said aspect has been repeatedly argued,
deliberated upon and it has consistently
been ruled that the appeal under Chapter
VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of 1952 against
dismissal of contempt petition, is not
maintainable.

7.
Hon'ble
Supreme
Court
in
Midnapore Peoples' Co-operative Bank
Ltd. & Ors. V. Chunilal Nanda & Ors.:
(2006) 5 SCC 399, has laid down the
following qua the maintainability of appeal
and the remedy available to a party
aggrieved of the order passed by the
contempt Court, as under:

"11. The position emerging from
these decisions, in regard to appeals
against orders in contempt proceedings
may be summarised thus:

I. An appeal under Section 19 is
maintainable only against an order or
decision of the High Court passed in
exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for
contempt, that is, an order imposing
punishment for contempt.

II. Neither an order declining to
initiate proceedings for contempt, nor an
order initiating proceedings for contempt
nor an order dropping the proceedings for
contempt nor an order acquitting or
exonerating the contemnor, is appealable
under Section 19 of the CC Act. In special
circumstances, they may be open to
challenge under Article 136 of the
Constitution.

III. In a proceeding for contempt,
the High Court can decide whether any
contempt of court has been committed, and
if so, what should be the punishment and
matters incidental thereto. In such a
proceeding, it is not appropriate to
adjudicate or decide any issue relating to
the merits of the dispute between the
parties.

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
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.

V.
If
the High
Court,
for
whatsoever reason, decides an issue or
makes any direction, relating to the merits
of the dispute between the parties, in a
contempt
proceedings,
the
aggrieved
8 All. Alok Kumar Yadav Vs. Sri Ashish Kumar Pandey
615
person is not without remedy. Such an
order is open to challenge in an intra-court
appeal (if the order was of a learned Single
Judge and there is a provision for an intracourt appeal), or by seeking special leave
to appeal under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India (in other cases).

The first point is answered
accordingly."

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while
dealing with the appeals against orders in
contempt proceedings inter alia laid down
in Clause II above, that neither an order
declining
to
initiate
proceedings
for
contempt,
nor
an
order
initiating
proceedings for contempt nor an order
dropping the proceedings for contempt nor
an order acquitting or exonerating a
contemnor is appealable under Section 19
of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and
further
observed
that
in
special
circumstances, those orders may be open to
challenge under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India.

9. Under Clause V, a window was kept
open by Hon'ble Supreme Court that in
cases if the High Court decides an issue or
makes any direction relating to the merits
of the dispute between the parties in a
contempt proceedings, the aggrieved party
can question the same in an intra court
appeal or under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India.

10. It would be seen that it was
categorically laid down that appeal against
an order declining to initiate proceedings
for contempt or an order dropping the
proceedings for contempt, the appeal is not
maintainable and even qua intra court
appeals, the power has been restricted qua
nature of orders as indicated herein before.

11. The issue is no more res integra as
this Court has repeatedly laid down in
Jagdamba Prasad Vs. Balgovind and 10
Others: 2016: AHC:77023-DB, Sheo
Charan Vs. Naval and Others 1997 SCC
OnLine All 1136, Hub Lal Yadav Vs.
Mahendra and Others 2017 ADJOnline
0638 that an order passed by contempt
judge in exercise of powers of his contempt
jurisdiction
whereby
the
contempt
proceedings have been discharged cannot
be made the subject matter of intra court
appeal.

12. In Vinod Kumar Gupta and Ors.
v. Veer Bahadur Yadav and Ors.: 2023
(7) ADJ 107, again the Division Bench
after taking into consideration the entire
law on the subject and referring to various
precedents,
came
to
the
following
conclusion:

"32. While applying the above
noted judgment in the facts of the present
case, now this Court has to bestow its
anxious consideration as to whether the
present intra-court appeal is maintainable
against the judgment and order of the
learned Single Judge while declining to
initiate contempt proceedings against the
opposite parties.

33. As noticed above, the Hon'ble
Apex Court and this Court has consistently
held that an intra-court appeal is not
maintainable against the order of the
learned Single Judge exercising contempt
jurisdiction in a contingency, when the
contempt
proceedings
are
not
being
initiated. The reliance placed upon the
judgment in the case of Durga Nagpal
(supra) is misconceived and misplaced as
in the said case, the Hon'ble Judges while
exercising
appellate
jurisdiction
were
confronted with the situation where the
616 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
contempt court reviewed its own order after
entertaining miscellaneous application for
modification of the final judgment. The
Division Bench opined that when accused
are discharged and proceedings are closed,
miscellaneous application for modification
is not maintainable. In the said perspective,
the Special Appeal was held to be
maintainable. Since the present case
originates from a judgment and order of the
contempt court declining to exercise
contempt
jurisdiction,
thus,
the
said
judgment is of no aid to the appellants.

34. Accordingly, we are of the
firm opinion that the present intra-court
appeal against the judgment and order of
the learned Single Judge dated 17.03.2023
declining to initiate contempt proceedings
is not maintainable under Chapter VIII
Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court."

13. Recently, another Division Bench
to which one of us (Arun Bhansali, CJ.)
was a member in Subhash Chandra Vs.
Srikant
Goswami
Posted
Managing
Director, Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Ltd.
Lucknow And 2 Others: 2024:AHCLKO:58884-DB, again after taking into
consideration the entire law laid down as
under:

"69. The pith and substance of the
aforesaid discussion, the legal principles
involved and circumstances when an
appeal may lie under Section 19 of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and when a
Special Appeal may lie from an order
passed in contempt jurisdiction can be
summarized as under:-

(A)
Section
19
(1)
of
the
Contempt of Courts Act can be invoked
only when the Contempt Court has
exercised its jurisdiction to punish for
contempt. The essence of this provision is
to provide a remedy against decision where
the court has taken a definitive action to
penalize a contemnor. This includes orders
that impose fines, imprisonment, or other
punitive measures directly related to the
contemptuous
behavior.
Interlocutory
orders, which do not entail punishment for
contempt, do not fall within the ambit of
Section 19. Such orders may include
directions to produce documents, file
affidavits,
or
procedural
directives
necessary for the continuation of the
contempt proceedings. These are routine
judicial actions that facilitate the progress
of the case but do not constitute a final
determination on the issue of contempt.
Routine orders passed during the pendency
of contempt proceedings are also excluded
from the scope of Section 19. These orders
are typically procedural and administrative
in nature, ensuring that the proceedings
move forward without addressing the
substantive issues of the original case or
the merits of the contempt.

(B) The crux of the matter lies in
the
nuanced
interpretation
of
what
constitutes "merit" within the context of
contempt proceedings, as referenced by the
Supreme Court in the Midnapore Peoples
Cooperative Bank Limited case. The term
"merit" has not been defined in a straight
jacket
formula,
leading
to
varying
interpretations. However, a cumulative
reading of the judgments provide clarity on
several key aspects. In the Midnapore case,
the Supreme Court held that in contempt
proceedings,
it
is
inappropriate
to
adjudicate or decide any issue related to
the merits of the dispute between the
parties. This principle aims to ensure that
contempt proceedings do not encroach
upon the substantive rights of the parties
involved in the original dispute. The focus
8 All. Alok Kumar Yadav Vs. Sri Ashish Kumar Pandey
617
of contempt jurisdiction is to uphold the
dignity and authority of the court, not to
resolve the underlying dispute. The term
"merit" in this context refers to the
substantive issues of the original case that
led to the contempt proceedings. It
encompasses the core legal and factual
questions that were or are being contested
in the original litigation.

(C) Special appeals from the
order or judgment of a single judge bench
in contempt cases hinge on the distinction
between addressing the merits of the
original
dispute
and
the
conduct
constituting
contempt.
The
primary
responsibility of the Contempt Court is to
determine whether contempt has occurred
and to impose appropriate sanctions if it
has. The merits of the original controversy
are outside the domain of the contempt
court. However, when the Contempt Court
issues directions or discusses the merits of
the original controversy, it oversteps its
jurisdiction. In such cases, a special appeal
would lie to the High Court. This ensures
that the original substantive issues are not
inadvertently decided within the limited
scope of contempt proceedings, preserving
the parties' rights to a fair adjudication of
their dispute.

(D) The interpretation of each
case depends on its specific facts and
circumstances.
Courts
must
carefully
distinguish between orders that address the
procedural
aspects
of
contempt
proceedings and those that encroach upon
the substantive issues of the original case.
This distinction is crucial to maintaining
the integrity of contempt jurisdiction and
ensuring that appeals under Section 19 of
the Act of 1971 are appropriately limited to
cases where punitive action for contempt
has been taken. Thus, Special appeals in
contempt cases are warranted only when
the
Contempt
Court
oversteps
its
jurisdiction by addressing the merits of the
original
dispute,
ensuring
that
the
substantive rights of the parties are
protected. The interpretation of each case
must consider the specific facts and
circumstances to uphold the integrity of
contempt
jurisdiction
and
provide
appropriate
remedies
for
aggrieved
parties."

14. The said judgement in the case of
Subhash Chandra (supra) was followed
in Bhanu Pratap Singh VS. Vikrant Vir
and Ors.: 2025:AHC:4796-DB by a coordinate Bench to which one of us (Arun
Bhansali, CJ.) was a member wherein again
the issue raised in this regard was
thoroughly dealt with and it was laid down
as under:

"Accordingly, we are of the firm
opinion that the present intra-court appeal
seeking to challenge the order of the
learned Single Judge in exercise of the
contempt jurisdiction declining to initiate
contempt proceedings is not maintainable."

15. In view of the above, the legal
position is well settled and established over
a period of about two decades holding that
appeal against order passed refusing to
initiate proceedings for contempt/dropping
of
contempt
proceedings
is
not
maintainable except for exception carved
out in the case of Midnapore (supra).

16. So far as the judgement in the case
of Tanseem Fatima (supra) is concerned,
the Division Bench without referring to any
of the binding precedents came to the
conclusion that the judgement in the case of
Midnapore (supra) on the question of
maintainability of Special Appeal under
618 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of 1952,
has no application and provisions of
Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of 1952
do not bar appeal against order dismissing
the contempt petition, which judgement
apparently on account of ignoring binding
precedents is per incuriam and cannot be
pressed into service as a precedent.

17. In view of the above discussion,
as
the
learned
Single
Judge
has
dismissed the contempt petition on
coming to the conclusion that the
pleadings in the affidavit and the
documents annexed with the same do not
reveal any wilful disobedience, the intra
court
appeal
is
dismissed
as
not
maintainable.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 618
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA
TRIPATHI, J.
THE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA,J.

Special Appeal No. 1303 of 2012

Union Of India & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
No.
913126828
Ex.
Constable
Driver
Girwar Singh Tomar ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
B.K. Singh Raghuvanshi, Kuldeep Singh
Chauhan

Counsel for the Respondents:
S. Shekhar

Issue for Consideration
(A) Relevancy of clinical examination to proof
drunken state of the delinquent employee at the
time of incident.
(B) Application of doctrine of proportionality of
punishment to the charges leveled.
(C) Justification of remanding the matter back
to the Disciplinary Authority keeping in view of
the efflux of time taken during litigation.

Headnotes
(A) Service law - Dismissal from service -
Working on the post of Constable Driver -
One charge was that the delinquent
employee was found under influence of
alcohol - No blood test, but only clinical
examination was held to proof drunken
state at the time of incident - Effect :
Held : Mere report of the medical officer
mentioning that "clinically" the respondent
appeared to be under influence of alcohol was
not sufficient to arrive at a definite conclusion in
that regard [Para 18]
(B)
Service
law
-
Doctrine
of
proportionality
-
Application
-
Punishment of dismissal - Quantum of
punishment - Writ court set aside the
order of dismissal and remanded back to
the Disciplinary authority - Legality of
writ
order
was
challenged
-
Proportionality of punishment of dismissal
with the charges and justification of
remand of matter were also felt into
consideration :
Held : Normally, it is the disciplinary authority
which should be best left with the duty of
imposing the punishment after considering the
facts and circumstances of the case, however, in
case, if on the admitted facts, the punishment
imposed is grossly disproportionate to the
offence, which shocks the conscience of the
Court, the Court has the power and jurisdiction
to interfere with the punishment imposed -
Remanding the matter to the Disciplinary
Authority would be an inappropriate exercise of
power by us at this stage and we can mould the
relief to be granted in order to sub-serve the
ends of justice considering the fact that
dismissal order was passed in the year 1999,
the writ petition was filed in the year 2001,
which was decided in the year 2007 and the
present special appeal has remained pending for
a period of about 18 years - The appellants
would be entitled for all notional benefits of
service. The order of dismissal would not come
in the way of computing the length of his
services for the purpose of granting pensionery