# Prof. Soniya Nityanand & Ors v. Prof. Ashish Wakhlu

- **Citation:** (2024) 5 ILRA 405
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-05-27
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 125 of 2024
- **Bench:** Rajan Roy, Om Prakash Shukla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/prof-soniya-nityanand-ors-v-prof-ashish-wakhlu-52115
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Contempt Law - Constitution of India -
Article 215 - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
- Section 23 - Contempt proceeding -
Nature - Standard of proof - Held,
contempt proceedings are quasi criminal in
nature and the standard of proof is beyond
reasonable doubt. These proceedings carry
a rigor much more than any other judicial
proceedings for adjudication of disputes.
These proceedings are in exercise of
powers of the High Court to punish for its
contempt and that of the subordinate
courts. Therefore, they should be exercised
with circumspection and due and proper
application of mind even at the stage of
initiation of such proceedings. (Para 23)

B. Contempt Law - Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971 - Section 23 - Contempt
proceeding - Scope of punishment -
Prima facie satisfaction - Necessity -
Non existence of jurisdictional facts -
Effect - Notice was issued altogether
with
allowing
the
impleadment
of
appellant - Legality challenged - Held,
Issuance of notice in a contempt matter
is not a causal or routine procedure. It
requires due and proper application of
mind - Ordinarily, when an application
for impleadment is filed in a pending
contempt proceedings, practice has
been to issue notice to the proposed
opposite party before considering it so
that they may have an opportunity to
inform the contempt court about the
correct facts, unless from the facts
placed and documents annexed, an
exceptional case is made out, prima
facie. - Division Bench gave liberty to
the appellants to move an application
before Single Bench for discharge of
notices issued against him. (Para 23, 24
and 27)

Appeal disposed of. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:
406 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

## Text

5 All. Prof. Soniya Nityanand & Ors. Vs. Prof. Ashish Wakhlu
405
liable to be dismissed on all the grounds
whether it is legal or factual. The accused /
petitioners have no locus standi to move
application for further investigation before
the Magistrate and in the facts and
circumstances of the case, if the Magistrate
found that the application was not worth
credit and he rejected it accordingly, no
legal or factual error was committed by the
concerned Magistrate.

39. Considering the entire facts and
circumstances of the case, the submissions
advanced by learned counsel for the parties
and also keeping in view the above stated
legal position, there is no such illegality,
perversity or any error of jurisdiction in the
impugned order so as to warrant exercise of
powers under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India by this Court. There is no
justification warranting any interference
with the impugned order in this petition.
Consequently, the present petition is liable
to be dismissed.

40. Accordingly, the instant petition
under article 227 of the Constitution is
hereby dismissed.
----------
(2024) 5 ILRA 405
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.05.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.
THE HON'BLE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.

Writ A No. 125 of 2024

Prof. Soniya Nityanand & Ors.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
Prof. Ashish Wakhlu ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioners
Lal Prasad Misra, Shubham Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sandeep Kumar Ojha

A. Contempt Law - Constitution of India -
Article 215 - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
- Section 23 - Contempt proceeding -
Nature - Standard of proof - Held,
contempt proceedings are quasi criminal in
nature and the standard of proof is beyond
reasonable doubt. These proceedings carry
a rigor much more than any other judicial
proceedings for adjudication of disputes.
These proceedings are in exercise of
powers of the High Court to punish for its
contempt and that of the subordinate
courts. Therefore, they should be exercised
with circumspection and due and proper
application of mind even at the stage of
initiation of such proceedings. (Para 23)

B. Contempt Law - Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971 - Section 23 - Contempt
proceeding - Scope of punishment -
Prima facie satisfaction - Necessity -
Non existence of jurisdictional facts -
Effect - Notice was issued altogether
with
allowing
the
impleadment
of
appellant - Legality challenged - Held,
Issuance of notice in a contempt matter
is not a causal or routine procedure. It
requires due and proper application of
mind - Ordinarily, when an application
for impleadment is filed in a pending
contempt proceedings, practice has
been to issue notice to the proposed
opposite party before considering it so
that they may have an opportunity to
inform the contempt court about the
correct facts, unless from the facts
placed and documents annexed, an
exceptional case is made out, prima
facie. - Division Bench gave liberty to
the appellants to move an application
before Single Bench for discharge of
notices issued against him. (Para 23, 24
and 27)

Appeal disposed of. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:
406 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
1. Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. & ors. Vs
Chunilal Nanda & ors.; (2006) 5 SCC 399

2. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad through
its Registrar Vs Raj Kishore Yadav & ors.; (1997)
3 SCC 11

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajan Roy, J.)

(1) Heard Dr. L.P. Mishra, learned
Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Shubham
Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellants
and Sri Sandeep Dixit, learned Senior
Counsel assisted by Sri Sandeep Kumar
Ojha, learned counsel for the respondent.

(2) This is an appeal by the ViceChancellor and Members of the Executive
Council
of
King
George's
Medical
University, Lucknow under Chapter VIII
Rule V of the Allahabad High Court Rules,
1952 challenging an order passed by the
Contempt Court on 08.05.2024 in Contempt
Application (Civil) No.963 of 2020 [Prof.
Ashish Wakhlu vs. Prof. M.L. Bhatt ViceChancellor, K.G.M.C., Lucknow & Ors.] In
fact an application filed by the respondent
for impleadment of the appellants herein has
been allowed and then notices have been
issued to them. The said impugned order
reads as under:-

"(Order
on
Impleadment
Application i.e. I.A./26/2024)
 1. Heard Shri Sandeep Dixit,
learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri
Sandeep Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for
the applicant.

2. This is an application filed for
seeking impleadment.

3. Cause shown in the affidavit
filed in support of the impleadment
application is sufficient.

4. Accordingly, the impleadment
application is allowed.

5. Learned counsel for the
applicant is permitted to carry out necessary
impleadment, forthwith.
(Order on Contempt Application)
 1. Let notice be issued to newly
impleaded respondents i.e. respondent nos.
11 to 23 within a week to show cause as to
why they should not be punished for wilfull
disobedience of the directions of this Court,
returnable within two weeks failing which
the charges may be framed after summoning
the contemnors.

2. Office is directed to send a copy
of this order along with the notice.

3. List this case on 09.07.2024
within top ten cases. "

(3) The contention of learned
counsel
for
the
appellant
is
that
jurisdictional
facts
which
have
to
necessarily preexist the issuance of any
notice in a contempt proceedings were
absolutely absent in the case at hand yet
learned Single Judge without satisfying
himself, prima facie, about any civil
contempt having been committed by the
appellants has not only allowed the
application for impleadment but also issued
notice to them for showing the cause as to
why they should not be punished for willful
disobedience of this Court, failing which,
charges may be framed after summoning the
contemnors. The contention is that the
contempt petition was filed in the year 2020
alleging that the Executive Council of the
University by passing a Resolution dated
08.06.2020 had violated an interim order
passed on 01.12.2018 in Writ Petition
No.35784 (S/S) of 2018 filed by the
respondent.
The
appellants
whose
impleadment has been allowed and notices
have been issued by the impugned order
were not Members of the Executive Council
on 08.06.2020. In fact, appellant no.1 has
been appointed as Vice-Chancellor much
5 All. Prof. Soniya Nityanand & Ors. Vs. Prof. Ashish Wakhlu
407
later, that is, in August, 2023. The other
appellants have become Members of the
Executive Council much after 08.06.2020
and none of these appellants had any role to
play in the passing of the Resolution dated
08.06.2020
which
according
to
the
respondent was contemptuous. In fact, in the
affidavit in support of the application for
impleadment,
there
is
no
averment
whatsoever as to how the appellants herein
had committed civil contempt but ignoring
all these facts and without recording any
prima facie satisfaction, the Contempt Court
has passed the impugned order in the
absence of jurisdictional facts which would
give jurisdiction to the learned Single Judge
to initiate contempt proceedings against the
appellants and in the absence of any prima
facie satisfaction recorded by the Contempt
Court
regarding
existence
of
such
jurisdictional facts. The contempt Court has,
thus, committed a jurisdictional error.

(4) The submission was that
contempt proceedings are quasi criminal in
nature and the standard of proof is beyond
reasonable doubt. These are very harsh
proceedings and therefore, their initiation
should not be a casual act as has happened
in this case. This was not a case where
proceedings could have been initiated
against
the
appellants
without
even
recording any satisfaction as to how, even
prima facie, they have committed any civil
contempt. In the facts of the case,
apparently,
no
contempt
has
been
committed by them as they were not part of
the Executive Council when the Resolution
dated 08.06.2020 was passed.

(5) It was also submitted that, in fact,
the Resolution dated 08.06.2020 has been
challenged by the respondent by means of a
separate Writ Petition bearing No.3840 (S/S)
of 2021 along with a challenge to the order
terminating his services dated 10.06.2020 but
there is no interim order therein. Now, by
impleadment of the appellants, the respondent
veritably wants to arm twist them and secure
his reinstatement in contempt proceedings,
thereby, seeking relief which he has not yet got
in the writ proceedings. In any case, so far as
contempt by the appellant is concerned, even
prima facie, the same is not made out by any
stretch of imagination.

(6) In fact, learned counsel for the
respondent submitted that on 06.05.2024 an
application was submitted before the ViceChancellor i.e. appellant no.1. On the
aforesaid application, the Vice-Chancellor
informed the respondent on 06.05.2024 itself
that the above matter will be placed before the
Executive Council of the University at the
earliest since it is the appointing authority. But
on that very date i.e. on 06.05.2024, the
respondent
filed
the
application
for
impleadment which was allowed within three
days i.e. on 08.05.2024. The respondent acted
in haste just as the order impugned was passed.

(7) It was further submitted that as far as
dismissal of Civil Appeal No (S).54555456/2022 on 24.04.2024, the same was filed
by Prof. Lt. General (Retd.) Dr. Bipin Puri &
Anr. and the said appeal does not decide any
issue qua the appellants herein, at best, the said
order would bind the appellants of the said
appeal who were the other opposite parties in
the contempt proceedings and the said order
cannot be used against the appellants to make
a case for contempt which has to be considered
independently
especially
as
contempt
proceedings are against the person who is
alleged to have committed the contempt.

(8) It was also contented that it is
not a case where some direction was issued
and it remained uncomplied and in the
meantime, the person holding the post
408 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
demitted office as, in such case one who
succeeds will be bound to comply the said
order but it is a case where contempt alleged
is against certain Members of the Executive
Council who had passed the Resolution
dated 08.06.2020 which according to the
respondent is in the teeth of the interim order
passed by this Court in a writ petition which
is still pending wherein a stay vacation
application is also pending. Now, in this
scenario, as none of the appellants were
Members of the Executive Council at the
relevant time when the Resolution dated
08.06.2020 was passed nor did they have
any role to play in that regard, on the face of
it, they could not have been subjected to the
rigour of contempt proceedings. None of
this has been seen and a jurisdictional error
has committed in passing the impugned
order. It was contended that the right course
for the contempt court was to issue notice on
the impleadment application to the proposed
opposite
parties/
alleged
contemnors
whereupon the correct facts would have
been placed before the Contempt Court and
this situation would have been avoided. The
appellants have been subjected to initiation
of contempt proceedings unjustifiably.

(9) On the other hand, Sri Sandeep
Dixit, learned counsel for the respondent
submitted that the special appeal itself is not
maintainable as the impugned order did not
qualify within the meaning of the term
'judgment' used in Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the
Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952. He
placed reliance on a Supreme Court's
judgment rendered in the case of 'Midnapore
Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. & Ors. vs.
Chunilal Nanda & Ors.' reported in (2006) 5
SCC 399 and certain other decisions. His
submission was that the appellants were
under an obligation to rectify the contempt
already committed by the predecessors and
not having done so they are liable to be
prosecuted for contempt. We pointedly
asked Sri Dixit to point out any order of the
writ court in any of the writ petitions
pending between the parties wherein the
Resolution dated 08.06.2020 or the order
terminating the services of the respondent
on 10.08.2020 may have been stayed or for
that matter any direction may have been
issued to the University to reinstate the
respondent or for that matter to withdraw the
Resolution dated 08.06.2020 and the order
of termination from service, he could not
point out any such order.

(10) He referred to the earlier
proceedings before the Contempt Court
wherein an application for deferment of
hearing by the earlier Vice-Chancellors was
rejected against which a Special Leave
Petition bearing No.6899-6900 of 2022 was
filed after framing of charge on 08.02.2022
by the then Vice-Chancellor and others and
though, initially interim orders were passed
by Hon'ble the Supreme Court but
ultimately, the special leave petition after
being
converted
into
Civil
Appeal
No(s).5455-5456/2022 was dismissed. This
aspect of the matter has already been
addressed by Dr. L.P. Mishra, learned
counsel appearing for the appellants as
noticed earlier.

(11) In response, learned counsel
for the appellants submitted that the
respondent is resorting to arm-twisting
measures by filing an application for
impleadment with intent to intimidate the
Members of the Executive Council and
brow beat them into doing something and
granting such relief to him which in fact he
has not been able to secure through the
process of law in the writ petition wherein
the Resolution dated 08.06.2020 and the
order of termination of his service has been
challenged. According to him, the impugned
5 All. Prof. Soniya Nityanand & Ors. Vs. Prof. Ashish Wakhlu
409
order amounts to an interim judgment as it
virtually decides the jurisdiction of the
Contempt Court to proceed and initiate the
contempt
proceedings
against
the
appellants,
therefore,
the
appeal
is
maintainable.

(12) We have heard learned counsel
for the parties and perused the records.

(13) The power to punish for
contempt is vested in the High Court as an
inherent power and it flows from a
constitutional provision contained in Article
215 of the Constitution of India by virtue of
which it is a court of record having plenary
powers including the power to punish for its
contempt. The Contempt of Courts Act,
1971 does not supersede or abrogate the
inherent powers vested in it under Article
215 of the Constitution of India and legal
position in this regard is well settled.
Reference may be made to a decision
reported in (1997) 3 SCC 11 'High Court of
Judicature
at
Allahabad
Through
its
Registrar vs. Raj Kishore Yadav and Ors' in
this regard wherein vires contained in
Chapter XXXV-E of the Allahabad High
Court Rules, 1952 pertaining to contempt
proceedings were under challenge. The said
Chapter of the Rules, 1952 contains rules
framed under Section 23 of the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971. But before referring to the
said Rules, we may refer to the definition of
'civil contempt' contained in Section 2 (a)
and (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
which reads as under:-

 "(a) "contempt of court" means
civil contempt or criminal contempt;

(b) "civil contempt" means wilful
disobedience to any judgment, decree,
direction, order, writ or other process of a
court or wilful breach of an undertaking
given to a court;"
(14) As per Rule 1 of Chapter
XXXV-E of the Rules, 1952, the Rules
contained in the said Chapter shall govern
presentation and hearing of Contempt of
Court cases coming to the High Court under
the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The
impugned order has been passed in
proceedings for civil contempt and there is
no dispute about it. In this context, Rule 5 of
Chapter-XXXV-E of the Rules, 1952 is
relevant which reads as under:-

 "5. Issuance of notice :- Such
allegations contained in the petition as
appears to the Court to make out a prima
facie case of contempt of Court against the
person concerned, shall be reduced into
charge or charges by the Court against such
person, and notice shall be issued only with
respect to those charges :
Provided that the Court shall not
issue notice if more than a year has elapsed
from the alleged act of contempt of court. "

(15) On a bare reading of Rule 5, it
is evident that there have to be allegations
contained in the petition making out a prima
facie case of contempt of court against the
person concerned, meaning thereby, the
person who is arrayed as an opposite party.
This condition is also required to be satisfied
in the case of an impleadment application if
it is to be allowed because there have to be
allegations
in
the
application
for
impleadment making out a prima facie case
for contempt of court against the proposed
party only then it can be allowed.

(16) Rule 5 further provides that if
there are such allegations in the contempt
petition the same shall be reduced into
charge or charges by the Court against such
person, and notice shall be issued only with
respect to those charges. Some flexibility in
the procedure to be followed in this regard
410 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
may be permissible but it has to be in
consonance with the principles of natural
justice and fairness keeping in mind the
rigor of the proceedings. But existence of
jurisdictional facts and prerequisites and due
and proper application of mind to the same
is a sine qua non at the stage of issuance of
notice under Rule 5.

(17) In the case at hand apart from
impleadment of the appellants being
allowed
as
opposite
parties/
alleged
contemnors, the writ court has also issued
notice
for
initiation
of
contempt
proceedings.

(18) As per Rule 5, the Court has to
be prima facie satisfied about contempt
having
been
committed
by
alleged
contemnors. It is then required to issue
notice on such satisfaction.

(19) In this context, the contention of
learned counsel for the appellants is that on
a bare reading of the affidavit in support of
the
application
for
impleadment,
no
allegation as to how the appellants herein
have committed any civil contempt is made
out.
He
further
contended
that
no
satisfaction was arrived at nor recorded as is
required at the time of issuance of notice as
per Rule 5.

(20) We have also perused the
affidavit in support of the application for
impleadment.
Without
expressing
any
conclusive opinion on the issue, we do not
find any such specific allegation as to how
the appellants have committed willful
contempt of the interim order dated
01.12.2018 passed in the concerned writ
petition. We have also quoted the order
passed by the Contempt Court. We say no
more at this stage as the contempt
proceedings are still pending and the
application for impleadment has already
been allowed and notices issued to the
appellant.

(21) There are certain jurisdictional
facts/ prerequisites which must exist prior to
initiation of contempt proceedings against a
person by issuance of notice in terms of Rule
5 of Chapter-XXXV-E of the Rules, 1952 as
already discussed. They can be summarized
as under:-

 (a) There has to be an order of a
Court or an undertaking before it whether it
be the High Court or the subordinate court
for proceedings under the Act, 1971 as
contemplated in Section 2(b) of the said Act.

(b) Such order should have been
communicated to the alleged contemnor
calling upon him to comply the same.

(c) There has to be some action or
inaction or undertaking which may amount
to willful disobedience or flouting of such
order or undertaking so as to constitute civil
contempt.

(d) There have to be allegations in
the contempt petition or in an application for
impleadment mentioning the existence of
aforesaid jurisdictional facts/prerequisites
making out a prima facie case of deliberate
and willful disobedience or violation of the
order or undertaking by the alleged
contemnors/opposite parties or proposed
opposite parties.

(e) The contempt court has to
arrive at a prima facie satisfaction about
existence of the aforesaid jurisdictional
facts/ prerequisites making out a prima facie
case of contempt of court by the concerned
persons, before issuing notice.

(22) Only on the aforesaid satisfaction,
notices have to be issued to the alleged
contemnors in terms of Rule 5 of ChapterXXXV-E of the Rules, 1952. Same analogy
5 All. Prof. Soniya Nityanand & Ors. Vs. Prof. Ashish Wakhlu
411
applies while considering and allowing an
application for impleadment in pending
contempt proceedings.

(23) Issuance of notice in a contempt
matter is not a causal or routine procedure.
It requires due and proper application of
mind to the aforesaid facts and issues. We
must
keep
in
mind
that
contempt
proceedings are quasi criminal in nature and
the standard of proof is beyond reasonable
doubt. These proceedings carry a rigor much
more than any other judicial proceedings for
adjudication of disputes. These proceedings
are in exercise of powers of the High Court
to punish for its contempt and that of the
subordinate courts. Therefore, they should
be exercised with circumspection and due
and proper application of mind even at the
stage of initiation of such proceedings.

(24) This apart, ordinarily, when an
application for impleadment is filed in a
pending contempt proceedings, practice has
been to issue notice to the proposed opposite
party before considering it so that they may
have an opportunity to inform the contempt
court about the correct facts, unless from the
facts placed and documents annexed, an
exceptional case is made out, prima facie.
This is a time tested procedure and a
procedural
requirement
which
should
ordinarily be adhered.

(25) This appeal raises important
questions
as
to
initiation
of
such
proceedings and whether, at least in the facts
of this case. There are jurisdictional issues
involved,
whether
the
jurisdictional
facts/prerequisites for initiation of such
proceedings against the appellants did exist
or they did not, and whether the Contempt
Court without due and proper application of
mind not only allowed the application for
impleadment without notice to the proposed
opposite parties but even issued the
contempt notices which are impugned
herein. We were tempted to enter into and
adjudicate these important issues raised by
the appellants and the respondent but
considering
the
fact
that
contempt
proceedings are still pending and the
appellants have an opportunity to seek
discharge of the notices issued to them
taking all such pleas as have been raised
herein, we are of the opinion that it is the
Contempt Court itself which should first
take a call on these issues and thereafter, if
the occasion so arises we can consider the
same at the appropriate stage as per law.

(26) In these circumstances, we find
it appropriate to request the Contempt Judge
to kindly consider the pleas of the appellants
on an application for discharge being moved
by them and take a considered decision in
this regard as per law. If after such decision
is taken on the question as to whether the
appellants are liable to be proceeded for
contempt of court in the facts of the case, the
appellants still have a cause, they can avail
the remedies prescribed in law.

(27) We accordingly dispose of this
appeal with liberty to the appellants to move an
application for discharge of notices issued to
them to which respondent shall have a right to
respond and we request the Contempt Judge to
consider relevant aspects of the matter as to
whether the appellants are liable to be proceeded
under the Act, 1971 and the inherent powers of
the High Court for having committed civil
contempt.

(28) All pleas are open for being raised
before the Contempt Judge and they are open for
being considered by the Contempt Court.

(29) This order shall be placed
before the learned Contempt Court.
412 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
----------
(2024) 5 ILRA 412
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 31.05.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, J.
THE HON'BLE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.

Special Appeal No. 312 of 2020

Saurabh Gupta ...Appellant
Versus
The Unique Identification Authority of
India, New Delhi & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Sankalp Dewari, Sri Abhishek Bose, Sri
Lalit Shukla, Sri Mohd. Shujauddin Waris, Sri
Praveen Kumar, Sri Sachin Chaturvedi

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G., Lakshmi Gurung, Sri Varun Pandey

A. Service Law - Aadhaar (Targeted
delivery of Financial and other subsidies,
benefits and services) Act, 2016 -
Section
54
-
Unique
Identification
Authority
of
India
(appointment
of
officers and employees) Regulations,
2020 - Permanent Absorption - Deemed
absorption on expiry of three year of
deputation was claimed - Instead of
absorption, authority passed the order
for premature repatriation - Validity
challenged - Held, there is no concept of
'deemed
absorption'
or
'automatic
absorption' as these are terms absolutely
foreign
to
service
jurisprudence
-
Absorption has to be done as per the
rules & regulations and the law on that
aspect stands settled that, even if a
person is found to be eligible it does not
mean that he would be absorbed as a
matter of right. Thus, when eligibility
does not guarantee a deemed absorption,
how can merely completing a particular
tenure of service on deputation amount
to 'deemed' or 'automatic absorption' -
The absorption/transfer in the borrowing
organisation would be complete only
when the borrowing company passes an
order absorbing the deputationist. An
affirmative action is required from both
the lender as well as the borrowing
department
for
absorption
of
a
government servant in the borrowing
department. (Para 12 and 31)

Special Appeal dismissed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

1. Civil Appeal Nos. 9252-9253 of 2022; Kerala
St. Electricity Board & ors. Vs Thomas Joseph @
Thomas M. J. & ors. decided on 16.12.2022

2. Appeal (Civil) No. 5027 of 1999; Nathi Devi Vs
Radha Devi Gupta decided on 17.12.2004

3. Civil Appeal No. 152 of 2022; Employees' St.
Insurance Corporation Vs U.O.I.decided on
20.01.2022

4. U.O.I.& anr. Vs Shardinhu; (2007) 6 SCC 276

5. St. of A.P Vs Subbarayudu V.C. & ors.; 1998
(2) SCC 516

6. Brij Mohan Lal Vs U.O.I.& ors.; (2012) 6 SCC
502

7. Kunal Nanda Vs Union of India; AIR 2000 SC
2076: (2000) 5 SCC 362

8. Pawan Kumar & ors. Vs U.O.I.& ors.; 2018 SCC
OnLine Del 12615

9. Chandra Mohan Singh Bhandari Vs U.O.I.&
ors.; 2019 SCC OnLine Del 10002

10. Prasar Bharti & ors.Vs Amarjeet Singh & ors.;
2007 (2) SCALE 486

11. St. of U.P. Vs Ashok Kumar Saxena; AIR 1998
SC 925

12. Mohd. Masood Ahmad Vs St. of U.P. & ors.;
JT 2007 (12) SC 467

(Delivered by Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla, J.)