# Rajendra Singh & Ors v. Prabhu Narayan Singh V.C. L.D.A. Lko. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 4 ILRA 57
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-04-04
- **Case number:** Contempt Application (Civil) No. 2467 of 2017
- **Bench:** Shree Prakash Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rajendra-singh-ors-v-prabhu-narayan-singh-v-c-l-d-a-lko-anr-51834
- **Pages:** 12

## Headnote

Shobhit Mohan Shukla, Madan Mohan
Pandey,
Neel
Kamal
Mishra,
Ratnesh
Chandra, Shobhit Mohan Shukla

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Section 12
- Constitution of India,1950 - Article 32 -
U.P. Development Authorities Centralised
Service Rules, 1985 - Rule 20-A - Applicants
alleged
non-compliance
with
order
dated
19.08.1992 directing regularization of their
services as Junior Engineers within nine months.
Court held: (1) Direction to "take steps" for
regularization within nine months was not
mandatory but required reasonable efforts,
considering posts were under U.P. Public Service
Commission and no regularization rules existed
initially (Shri Ram Kishan Vs U.O.I., Writ Petition
(Civil) No. 853 of 1990). (2) St.'s efforts,
including
creating
supernumerary
posts,
amending Rule 20-A in 2001, and regularizing
services in 2003 after litigation, demonstrated
compliance despite delay due to legal challenges
(Rama Narang Vs Ramesh Narang, (2009) 16
SCC 126). (3) Applicants' failure to challenge the
1997 select list and their participation in
subsequent litigation indicated acceptance of
regularization process; delay was not deliberate
but due to absence of rules and ongoing
appeals (Kunwar Singh Saini Vs High Court of
Delhi, (2012) 4 SCC 307). (4) Applicants' nondisclosure of relevant Supreme Court orders and
litigation history did not amount to material
suppression, but no wilful disobedience was
established, as St. showed earnest efforts
through
cabinet
approvals
and
rule
amendments. Contempt notices discharged;
petition dismissed. (Paras 24-38)

Contempt Petition Dismissed.

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,508 of 41,033. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39508 for what follows._

4 All. Rajendra Singh & Ors. Vs. Prabhu Narayan Singh V.C. L.D.A. Lko. & Anr.
57
completely different context. The principle
was laid down in the context of an
application for impleadment by a party,
who had entered into a transaction with the
vendor to purchase the suit property, while
a suit for specific performance was
pending. The transaction was in violation
of an order of injunction, restraining the
vendor from alienating the suit property or
creating third party rights. It was a denial of
that kind of an application, that was upheld
by the Supreme Court in Vidur Impex and
Traders Private Limited.

27. Here, the amendments sought is
about parties, who are said to have
facilitated the plaintiff along with Balkar
Singh
in
perpetrating
a
fraudulent
transaction, as the defendant-revisionists
say, that led defendant-revisionists Nos.3
and 4 into entering into the suit
agreement with the plaintiff, thinking that
it was something very different. If in the
background of this defence, the plaintiff
has sought to raise a plea about nonjoinder of these persons said to be
involved in the conspiracy or the act of
connivance, refusal of the amendment
can hardly be said to be justified. It
would still be a matter to be seen, if
indeed, these persons ought to be
impleaded as parties. As already seen in
the context of broad principles relating to
the amendment of a written statement,
many pleas, some inconsistent, can and
ought to be permitted by way of
amendment, that cannot be permitted in
the case of a plaint. The Trial Judge, in
refusing
the
amendment
here,
has
certainly not gone by the settled standards
of permitting amendment to a written
statement.

28. The Trial Court, in declining the
amendment,
has
failed
to
exercise
jurisdiction vested in it, which would result
in failure of justice to the defendantrevisionists, if allowed to stand.

29. In the considered opinion of this
Court,
therefore,
the
amendment
application ought to have been and must,
therefore, be allowed.

30. In the result, this revision
succeeds and is allowed. The impugned
order dated 06.07.2022 passed by the Civil
Judge (Sr. Div.), Rampur, is hereby set
aside and reversed. The application for
amendment is allowed. Let the written
statement be amended in the terms prayed.
The interim stay order is hereby vacated.
The proceedings of the suit shall now be
expedited and concluded early without
granting any unnecessary adjournment to
either party.

31. There shall be no order as to costs.

32. Let a copy of the judgment be
communicated to the Civil Judge (Sr.
Div.),
Rampur
through
the
learned
District Judge, Rampur by the Registrar
(Compliance).
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 57
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 04.04.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

Contempt Application (Civil) No. 2467 of 2017

Rajendra Singh & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
Prabhu Narayan Singh V.C. L.D.A. Lko. &
Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
58 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Sharad Kumar Srivastava, Lalta Prasad
Misra

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Shobhit Mohan Shukla, Madan Mohan
Pandey,
Neel
Kamal
Mishra,
Ratnesh
Chandra, Shobhit Mohan Shukla

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Section 12
- Constitution of India,1950 - Article 32 -
U.P. Development Authorities Centralised
Service Rules, 1985 - Rule 20-A - Applicants
alleged
non-compliance
with
order
dated
19.08.1992 directing regularization of their
services as Junior Engineers within nine months.
Court held: (1) Direction to "take steps" for
regularization within nine months was not
mandatory but required reasonable efforts,
considering posts were under U.P. Public Service
Commission and no regularization rules existed
initially (Shri Ram Kishan Vs U.O.I., Writ Petition
(Civil) No. 853 of 1990). (2) St.'s efforts,
including
creating
supernumerary
posts,
amending Rule 20-A in 2001, and regularizing
services in 2003 after litigation, demonstrated
compliance despite delay due to legal challenges
(Rama Narang Vs Ramesh Narang, (2009) 16
SCC 126). (3) Applicants' failure to challenge the
1997 select list and their participation in
subsequent litigation indicated acceptance of
regularization process; delay was not deliberate
but due to absence of rules and ongoing
appeals (Kunwar Singh Saini Vs High Court of
Delhi, (2012) 4 SCC 307). (4) Applicants' nondisclosure of relevant Supreme Court orders and
litigation history did not amount to material
suppression, but no wilful disobedience was
established, as St. showed earnest efforts
through
cabinet
approvals
and
rule
amendments. Contempt notices discharged;
petition dismissed. (Paras 24-38)

Contempt Petition Dismissed.

List of Cases cited:

1. Shri Ram Kishan Vs U.O.I., Writ Petition (Civil)
No. 853 of 1990, decided on 21.02.1991 (Para 5)

2. Somesh Thapliyal Vs Vice Chancellor H.N.B.
Garhwal University, (2021) 10 SCC 166 (Para
14)
3. Rama Narang Vs Ramesh Narang, Contempt
Petition (Civil) No. 92 of 2008, (2009) 16 SCC
126 (Para 37)

4. Kunwar Singh Saini Vs High Court of Delhi,
(2012) 4 SCC 307 (Para 37)

5. Niaz Mohammad Vs St. of Har., (1994) 6 SCC
332 (Para 37)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shree Prakash
Singh, J.)

1. Heard Dr. L.P.Mishra, assisted by
Sri Sharad Kumar Srivastava, learned
counsel for the petitioners, Sri Upendra
Nath Mishra, learned Senior Counsel
assisted by Sri Neel Kamal Mishra, for
opposite party no. 3 and Sri Ratnesh
Chandra assisted by Sri Ishan Singh, for the
Lucknow Development Authority.

2. Instant contempt petition is
preferred for alleged non compliance of the
Judgment and Order dated 19-08-1992
passed in Writ Petition No. 222(S/S) of
1992 connected with Writ Petition No.
6384 (S/S) of 1989.

3. Factual matrix of the case is that
the petitioners were appointed as Junior
Engineers on workcharge basis in the years
1984,1985 and 1987, in the Lucknow
Development Authority, and in the year
1992, they approached this court by
preferring several petitions namely, Writ
Petition No. 222(S/S) of 1992 connected
with Writ Petition No. 6384 (S/S) of 1989,
and were heard together. The final
Judgment and order was passed by this
court on 19-08-1992, whereby these writ
petitions were allowed, while directing the
Lucknow Development Authority to pay
minimum of the pay-scale to the petitioners
as is being paid to the regularly appointed
Junior Engineers, Clerks and Class-IVth
4 All. Rajendra Singh & Ors. Vs. Prabhu Narayan Singh V.C. L.D.A. Lko. & Anr.
59
employees, were getting at that point of
time and as many as 7 directions were
issued, but, so far as the last direction in the
Judgment and Order dated 19-08-1992,
which is allegedly not complied with, by
the opposite parties, is to the effect that 'to
take step to obtain regularization of the
services of those petitioners within nine
months, if the posts are within the purview
of Public Service Commission. If posts are
not within the purview of Public Service
Commission, the opposite parties will
regularize the services of the petitioners
within said period.'

4. Being aggrieved with the above
said Judgment and Order dated 19-081992, the Lucknow Development Authority
filed two Special Appeals namely; Special
Appeal No. 35 of 1993 and the Special
Appeal No. 39 of 1993. Since, the
Judgment and Order dated 19-08-1992 was
with respect to the Junior Engineers, Clerks
and Class-IVth employees, whereas the
Special
Appeal
No.
35
of
1993,
particularly; challenging the Judgment and
Order with respect to the Assistant
Engineers and that was dismissed on 2010-2003. The Special Appeal No. 39 of
1993; was
also
dismissed
for
nonprosecution on 20-12-2016. Later on, the
order dated 20-12-2016 was recalled vide
order dated 30-10-2017 though on 30-102017, on the request of the learned counsel
for the appellant, the same was dismissed
as being rendered infructuous but no
objection was raised by the learned counsel
for the petitioners /respondent, then.

5. Admitted fact in between the
parties are that the services of the
petitioners were regularized in the year
2003 and further, the special appeal, which
was
preferred
by
the
Lucknow
Development Authority, is dismissed as
infructuous as no objection was raised by
the learned counsel for the petitioners
against the statement given by the learned
counsel for the appellants/opposite parties.
The fact remains that the Writ Petition
(Civil) No. 853 of 1990 titled as 'Shri Ram
Kishan and Ors Vs Union of India &
Others' was filed by some of the employees
of
the
Development
Authority
for
regularization of their services directly
before
the
Hon'ble
Supreme
Court,
invoking powers under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India, wherein, while
passing the Judgment and order dated 2102-1991 by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it was
directed to the authority 'to take steps
through the State of Uttar Pradesh to obtain
regularization of the petitioners as far as
possible preferably within nine months
from now so that by the end of the year the
process of regularization may, as far as
practicable be completed.'

6. Thereafter, the Apex Court
clarified it's order on 04-09-1991, while
observing that 'the question is one of
recruitment
into
U.P.
Development
Centralised Service. For that purpose, we
understand that there are a set of rules and
recruitment is through the State Public
Service Commission. Our direction on
February,
21,1991,
is
obviously
not
intended to require regularization contrary
to the rules inforce.'

7. The order dated 19-08-1992 passed
in Writ Petition No. 6384 (S/S) of 1989 and
Writ Petition No. 222(S/S) of 1992 was
stayed in Special Appeal No. 47 of 1994
preferred by the Lucknow Development
Authority on 23-11-1995. It is also said that
since the petitioners were appointed against
the posts, which come under the purview of
U.P. Public Service Commission and since
there were no rules with respect to the
60 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
regularization of such appointees and
thus,several exercise is said to be done by
the State Government and ultimately, on
22-07-1997, the petitioners under the
special circumstances, a select list was
issued wherein, the names of the petitioners
also find place.

8. After the aforesaid select list was
prepared, the same was assailed by some of
the
employees
of
the
Development
Authorities and an order was passed on 0809-1997, whereby the exercise with respect
to appointment of the petitioners including
other similarly situated employees are
done, had been declared unsustainable.
Thereafter, Special Appeal No. 788 of 1997
alongwith other special appeals were
preferred by the petitioners including the
other employees, which was finally decided
on 16-06-2000, whereby the order passed
by the learned Single Judge dated 08-091997 was set aside. Paragraph no. H of the
plaint of the Special Appeal No. 788 of
1997 preferred by the petitioners, is evident
that the petitioners have sought parity of
the Judgment and Order passed in Shri
Ram Kishan's case(Supra). Thereafter,
Civil Appeal No. 353 of 2001 was
preferred, wherein, as an interim measure,
the following order was passed by the
Hon'ble Apex Court on 24-03-2003, which
is quoted hereinunder :-

"Learned counsel for the State of
U.P. submits that the State of U.P. would
try to regularise the adhoc/daily wage
appointees who are in service for a number
of years and that said regularization would
be subject to the final decision in the
appeal.

In
view
of
the
aforesaid
statement,
learned
counsel
for
the
applicant is not pressing the applications.
Hence, the applications stand disposed of
accordingly. It is made clear that no
further contempt proceedings should be
initiated by the parties."

9. Thereafter, this appeal was
disposed of with the following observations
:-

"Heard learned counsel for the
appellants and counsel for the State.

The Judgment of the Division
Bench of the High Court of Allahabad
dated 26-06-2000, directing regularisation
of certain adhoc employees and daily wage
appointees who were working as Junior
Engineers. The appellants herein have
already been regularised by the State
pursuant to the Judgment of the High
Court. However, they have raised a
contention
that
while
making
regularisation
these
appellants
were
entitled to get seniority over some other
candidates who were regularised by the
respondent-State. If there is such a dispute
regarding inter-se seniority of regularised
candidates, they challenge the same before
an
appropriate
forum.
We
see
no
justification to consider such a question in
these appeals.

The appeals are disposed of
without prejudice to such contentions
raised by the appellants."

10. Now, it emerges out that the
services of the petitioners have been
regularized
on
23-07-2003,
while
amendment in the rule 20-A of Rules 1985.

11. Contention of learned counsel for
the petitioners is that on place of
regularization of the services of the
petitioners within a period of nine months
from the date of the Judgment and Order
dated 19-08-1992, the same is done w.e.f.
23-07-2003. He submits that the Judgment
4 All. Rajendra Singh & Ors. Vs. Prabhu Narayan Singh V.C. L.D.A. Lko. & Anr.
61
and Order dated 19-08-1992 passed in Writ
Petition No. 7638 (S/S) of 1989 (Vijay
Kumar Srivastava and Others Vs State of
U.P. and Others), has never been modified,
altered or changed in any proceeding
before
any
court
of
law
and
the
Amendment Application moved in Special
Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 2332-2333 of
2023 has also been dismissed on 19-102023 and the Special Appeal No. 39 of
1993 (Lucknow Development Authority
and Others Vs. Vijay Kumar Srivastava and
Others) filed against the Judgment and
Order dated 19-08-1992, was stayed and
the same was dismissed as infructuous, on
30-10-2017, on the statement of the learned
counsel for the appellants that the order
passed by the Single Judge has been
complied with, though the statement given
by the appellant was incorrect and
misleading and the present contempt
petition has been filed after the Special
Appeal No. 39 of 1993 was dismissed. He
further argued that the exercise, which is
said to be done in the year 1997 for
appointing/treating the petitioners as adhoc
employees, is not in compliance of the
Judgment and order dated 19-08-1992, as
no reference is made, in the order dated 2207-1997.

12. Further, submitted that in the
Judgment and order passed in Shri Ram
Kishan's Case (Supra), it is evident that the
directions are flexible as the words are used
'as far as possible preferably within nine
months' and so far as the Judgment and
Order dated 19-08-1992 is concerned, there
is a specific direction that 'to take steps to
obtain regularization of the services of
these petitioners within nine months'.
Therefore, submission is that the period
prescribed for regularization of the services
of the petitioners is very particular and that
has not been interfered at any stage before
any higher forum/court and thus, it is not
open for the opposite parties to make any
interpretation of the direction of this court
as per their own facility and thus, it is not
the second set of regularization, but the
regularization of the petitioners should
have been done, since the year 1992, that
too, within a period of nine months, which
apparently, has not been done. Further
more, the S.L.P. has also been dismissed by
the Hon'ble Apex Court regarding any
interference in the order of the year 1992
and it is open for the petitioners to press
their contempt petition.

13. He further contended that the
petitioners were not the parties in the case
of Shri Ram Kishan (Supra) and even the
order dated 22-07-1997 also does not
disclose that the Judgment and order passed
by the writ court is also taken care of and
the petitioners could not approach this
court by way of instituting the contempt
petition, prior to the decision in the Special
Appeal No. 39 of 1993 as the Judgment and
Order dated 19-08-1992 was stayed and as
soon as the same was dismissed, the
petitioners have preferred the present
contempt petition. Infact the petitioners
were not in a position to refuse their
regularization w.e.f. 23-07-2003 as the
interim order was stayed and the petitioners
were not in a bargaining position as they
had no option to insist that they should be
regularized within nine months, from the
date of the Judgment dated 19-08-1992.

14. In support of his contentions, he
has placed reliance on the Judgment
reported in (2021)10 SCC, 166 (Somesh
Thapliyal and another Vs Vice Chancellor
H.N.B. Garhwal University and another)
and has referred paragraphs nos. 43 & 44 of
the said judgment, which are quoted
hereinunder :-
62 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

43. The bargaining power is
vested with the employer itself and the
employee is left with no option but, to
accept the condition dictated by the
authority. If that being the reason, it is
open for the employee to challenge the
conditions if it is not being in conformity
with the statutory requirement under the
law and he is not stopped from questioning
at a stage where he finds himself
aggrieved.

44. In the instant case, they
lodged the protest petition and brought
their grievances to the notice of the
respondents but were unable to question
except to pray to the Almighty to consider
their grievances sympathetically."

15. Adding his arguments, he submits
that there is no concealment of facts by the
petitioners in contempt petition and if any
word is left to be transcribed but the
paragraph discloses the sense of the word
left to be mentioned, could not be termed as
the concealment of facts and it is mere an
inadvertence or typographical error. He
also added that the opposite parties have
failed to substantiate with any of the
counter attack that there is any intentional
concealment of facts on the part of the
petitioners, may be there are certain
documents left to be annexed alongwith the
pleadings exchanged in the contempt
proceedings.

16. Concluding his arguments, he
submits that admittedly, the regularization
is done since 23-07-2003 and the Judgment
and Order dated 19-08-1992 is very clear in
it's term of directions that the opposite
parties
shall
take
steps
to
obtain
regularization of the petitioners, which has
apparently not been done even after passing
of more than three decades and the
Judgment and Order dated 19-08-1992 is
still intact. Therefore, submission is that the
opposite parties have committed wilful and
deliberate contempt of the Judgment and
Order passed by the writ court and thus,
they may be dealt with strictly, in
accordance with the provisions contained in
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

17. On the other hand, Sri Upendra
Nath
Mishra,learned
Senior
Counsel
appearing for the opposite party no. 3 has
very vehemently opposed the contentions
aforesaid and submitted that after the
Judgment and Order dated 19-08-1992,
there are several developments, as various
set of writ petitions, special appeals and
S.L.Ps, were filed and the opposite parties
after making their best efforts, have made
compliance of the order dated 19.08.1992.

18. While craving the leave to put a
brief history of appointment of the
petitioners for proper adjudication, he
submits that the petitioners were initially
engaged as work-charge Junior Engineers
by the Lucknow Development Authority,
though the said posts are a centralised
services post, which falls within the
purview of the U.P. Public Service
Commission and there were neither any
rules for regularization of daily wage/workcharge
employees
working
on
the
centralized posts covered under the U.P.
Public Service Commission nor there were
sufficient number of sanctioned posts of
Junior Engineers to accommodate all the
daily wage and muster roll employees and
therefore, efforts were made by the state
authorities to ensure compliance of the
Judgment and Order dated 19-08-1992
passed in the writ petition of the
petitioners,
as
after,
creating
supernumerary posts by resorting to the
cabinet approval, the services of the
petitioners were regularized on 23-07-2003.
4 All. Rajendra Singh & Ors. Vs. Prabhu Narayan Singh V.C. L.D.A. Lko. & Anr.
63
Further submitted that that it is an admitted
fact that the Judgment and order dated 1908-1992 was passed by Hon'ble Single
Judge while referring the Judgment and
Order dated 21-02-1991 passed in case of
Shri Ram Kishan's and later on, the
Lucknow Development Authority, had filed
an Special Appeal, wherein the Judgment
and Order dated 19-08-1992 was stayed
uptill 30-10-2017; as there were six other
directions in the Judgment and Order dated
19-08-1992 and undisputedly, those were
complied, within period of nine months as
was directed by the writ court, but, so far as
the grievance of the petitioners with respect
to alleged non compliance of the one of the
direction i.e. 'to take steps to obtain
regularization
of
the
petitioners'
is
concerned, because of non existence of
rules
of
regularization,
the
certain
exhaustive exercise was done by the State
authorities positively and ultimately, the
select list could be prepared on 22-07-1997,
though thereafter, also the same was
challenged and the Hon'ble Single Judge
found it unsustainable and thereafter,
Special Appeals were preferred by certain
other employees including the present
petitioners also, which were allowed and
after long running litigations, the exercise
could reach to it's logical end, in the year
1997 and thereafter, finally the services of
the petitioners could be regularized in the
year 2003. These exercises are done
resorting to the cabinet decision as there
was no rule of regularization, which shows
the earnest endeavour of the opposite
parties regarding the compliance of the
orders passed by this court as well as by the
Hon'ble Apex Court, as is evident from the
order dated 22-07-1997.

19. Further rebutting the contention of
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners
regarding the difference in the directions
given in the case of Shri Ram Kishan
(Supra) and the Judgment and Order dated
19-08-1992, he submits that the Judgment
and Order dated 19-08-1992 is 'not to
obtain the regularization but, to take steps
for obtaining regularization' and thus, it
opens to the opposite parties to carry out
the necessary formalities and to adhere to
the rules of regularization for obtaining
regularization
as
the
claim
of
the
petitioners for the regularization was on the
posts, which comes under the purview of
U.P. Public Service Commission and since
the
petitioners
were
not
the
adhoc
employees, as they were appointed on daily
wages, which is an admitted fact, and there
were no rules prevalent at that point of
time, with respect to regularization of the
services of the daily wage employees, on
the posts, under the purview of U.P. Public
Service
Commission,
therefore,
in
compliance of the order passed in the case
of Shri Ram Kishan (Supra) as well as the
Judgment and Order dated 19-08-1992, a
detailed exercise was done and while
resorting to the cabinet proceedings, the
select list dated 22-07-1997 was prepared
and thereafter, the amendment in the rules
1985 was done on 02-08-2001 and the
services of the petitioners were regularized
with effect from 23-07-2003.

20. Drawing attention towards the
order dated 30-10-2017, by which the
Special Appeal No. 39 of 1993 was
dismissed, he submits that the petitioners
were the parties over there, but, they did
not make any objection to the statement
given by learned counsel for appellant or
the Lucknow Development Authority, as it
was said that the special appeal has become
infructuous. He added that once the select
list dated 22-07-1997 was challenged and
said list was quashed, the petitioners by
way
of
moving
an
special
appeal,
64 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
challenged the said order passed by the
learned Single Judge and they succeeded in
the special appeal. Further, the opening
sentence of the select list dated 22-07-1997
is evident that the same is done in
compliance of the order passed by the High
Court as well as by the Hon'ble Apex
Court, though, the description is not given,
but it is clear that the said exercise is not
aloof but, the same is in compliance of the
orders passed by the Courts. He submits
that in the Judgment and Order dated 1908-1992, the Judgment and order passed in
the case of Shri Ram Kishan (Supra) was
also considered and thereafter, when all the
exercises are done and the petitioners have
been accorded the benefit of regularization,
even
all
the
proceedings
regarding
challenge of the select list; was in the
knowledge of the petitioners and they took
the benefit of the same, now at this stage,
they are claiming that there is non
compliance of the Judgment and Order
dated 19-08-1992, though they never
challenged the select list dated 22-07-1997
and are regularized on the very basis of the
same.

21. Adding his arguments, he submits
that the petitioners did not disclose the
complete facts and documents while
preferring the contempt petition as they did
not disclose the Judgment and Order of the
Hon'ble Apex Court, which is relevant for
adjudication of the contempt petition and
he tried to demonstrate that the same has
not been disclosed deliberately and thus,
his submission is that there are certain
implications of concealment of facts before
the court; for which the petitioners should
be dealt with strictly, and also added that
the contempt petition is not maintainable
on the ground of suppression of material
facts; as the petitioners are not with the
clean hands and there are clear cut
misrepresentation
and
deliberate
suppression of the facts and the documents.

22. Further contended that there is no
wilful,
deliberate
or
intentional
disobedience of the Judgment and the
directions dated 19-08-1992, passed by the
writ court and law is very clear on this
point as the provisions of Contempt of
Courts Act as well as several verdicts of the
Hon'ble Apex Court is very clear that while
punishing a contemnor for non compliance
of the order and direction of the court, the
court must satisfy that the disobedience is
deliberate and intentional.

23. Concluding his arguments, he
submits that because of the foregoing
reasons, stated in the preceding paragraphs,
the petitioners have failed to put their case
under the four corners of the wilful
disobedience as is defined under section 12
of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and
the petitioners are not with clean hands
before this court as there are material
suppression of facts in the contempt
petition itself. Therefore, submission is that
this contempt petition is liable to be
dismissed.

24. Having heard learned counsels for
the parties and after perusal of material
placed on records, it transpires that the
Judgment and Order dated 19-08-1992 was
passed in Writ Petition No. 222(S/S) of
1992 connected with Writ Petition No.
6384 (S/S) of 1989 filed by the Junior
Engineers, initially appointed on workcharge basis in the years 1984,1985 and
1987 alongwith clerks and Class-IVth
employees of the development authorities
of
centralised
services
department
(hereinafter referred to as 'centralised
services'). The writ court issued, as many
as seven directions and the opposite parties
4 All. Rajendra Singh & Ors. Vs. Prabhu Narayan Singh V.C. L.D.A. Lko. & Anr.
65
were directed to make compliance of the
order within a period of nine months.

25. Undisputedly, except apart the
issue with respect to regularization of the
services of the petitioners, all other
directions/orders passed by the writ court,
in the aforesaid writ petitions have been
complied with, within period prescribed by
the writ court, but, so far as regularization
of services of the petitioners is concerned,
it went upto the long litigations in between
the parties. From the Judgment and order
dated 19-08-1992, it is evident that the Writ
Petition(Civil) No. 853 of 1990 titled as
'Shri Ram Kishan and Ors Vs Union of
India & Others', was directly preferred
before the Hon'ble Apex Court by some of
the identically situated employees of the
centralised services under Article 32 of the
Constitution
of
India,
wherein
the
Judgment and Order was passed on 21-021991; and subsequently, clarifying it's
order dated 21-02-1991, an order was
passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 0409-1991, which briefly says 'not intended
to ensure regularization contrary to the
rules inforce.' The writ petition of the
petitioners were decided relying upon the
case of Shri Ram Kishan(Supra), which is
referred in paragraph no. 20 of the
Judgment and Order dated 19-08-1992 and
similar directions were issued as given in
Shri Ram Kishan's Case (Supra) by the
Hon'ble Apex Court, though the learned
counsel for the petitioners has tried to
demonstrate the difference in between the
Judgment and Order passed by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Shri Ram Kishan's Case
(Supra) as well as in the Judgment and
Order dated 19-08-1992, while pointing out
that in the direction of Shri Ram Kishan's
Case (Supra), the same is flexible as the
words 'possible and preferably' are used,
but, in the Judgment and Order dated 1908-1992, the time prescribed is strict and
there is no liberty given to the opposite
parties to go beyond the time prescribed,
but,
while
going
through
both
the
directions, the start wordings is common
i.e. 'to take steps' and therefore, this court
finds that so far as the purposive
interpretation applies the words 'to take
steps' qualifies the rest part of the direction
and once this court examines the steps
taken by the opposite parties regarding the
regularization of services of the petitioners,
it emerges that admittedly, there was no
rules or regulations to regularize the
services of work-charge or daily wage
employees on the posts, which come under
the purview of U.P. Public Service
Commission
and
therefore,
State
Government started exhaustive exercise so
as to make the appointment of the
petitioners on adhoc basis and therefore,
after great deliberations with U.P. Public
Service Commission by way of putting a
cabinet note, an amendment was got done,
which is known as 'The Uttar Pradesh
Development
Authorities
Centralised
Services (7th Amendment Rules,2001)
and prior to it, on 22-07-1997, a select list
was prepared, wherein the names of the
petitioners also find place.

26. Notably when the select list dated
22-07-1991, was prepared, the same was
assailed by way of instituting Civil Misc.
Writ Petition No. 1907 of 1995, alongwith
other connected writ petitions, which were
finally decided vide Judgment and Order
dated 08-09-1997, whereby the writ court
found that the exercise, which has been
done, with regard to selection for making
adhoc appointments against substantive
post, is unsustainable in the eyes of law,
whereafter, the same was assailed by way
of an Special Appeal bearing no. 792 of
1997 alongwith other connected special
66 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
appeals, wherein the petitioners including
Shri Ram Kishan also filed Special
Appeal No. 788 of 1997, which were
finally decided on 26-06-2000 and it was
directed that the State Government shall
reconsider the claim for regularization of
the services of the Junior Engineers in
accordance with the provisions contained
in Rule 20-A of U.P. Development
Authorities Centralised Service Rules,
1985(hereinafter referred to as 'Rules
1985') and the liberty was given to make
amendment
in
the
Rule
20-A;
as
aforesaid. The Rule 20-A of the Rules
1985, was amended and thereafter, an
S.L.P. bearing no. 356 of 2001 alongwith
other S.L.Ps were preferred before the
Hon'ble Apex Court and the same was
finally decided on 20-04-2006, wherein
the following order was passed :-

"Heard learned counsel for the
appellants and counsel for the State.

The Judgment of the Division
Bench of the High Court of Allahabad
dated 26.6.2000, directed regularisation
of certain adhoc employees and daily
wage appointees who were working as
Junior Engineers. The appellants herein
have already been regularised by the
State pursuant to the Judgment of the
High Court. However, they have raised a
contention
that
while
making
regularisation these appellants were
entitled to get seniority over some other
candidates who were regularised by the
respondent-State. If there is such a
dispute regarding inter se seniority of
regularised candidates, they challenge
the same before an appropriate forum. We
see no justification to consider such a
question in these appeals.

The appeals are disposed of
without prejudice to such contentions
raised by the appellants."

27. From perusal of the order dated
20-04-2006 passed by the Hon'ble Apex
Court, it transpires that the Hon'ble Apex
Court while considering the facts that the
services of the appellants/petitioners have
already been regularized by the State
Government and therefore, further dispute
of inter-se seniority etc. were open to be
challenged before the appropriate forum.

28. In all these exercises, the
petitioners were the parties and the facts
were fully in the knowledge of the
petitioners
that
though
the
State
Government was intended to regularize the
services of the petitioners, but, since the
several writ petitions, special appeals and
S.L.Ps were preferred and therefore, the
delay
occurred,
which
is
not
done
intentionally.

29. It is apparent from the directions
given in the Judgment and Order dated 1908-1992 that the opposite parties will
proceed to take steps for regularization and
the records, which were preferred through
the pleadings before this court, are evident
that the State Government was in a
continuous process of undertaking steps for
regularization of the services of the
petitioners including the other identically
situated employees of the 'centralised
services department' and therefore, the
directions cannot be gone into aloof. So far
as the allegation of deliberate defiance is
raised by the petitioners, the fact remains
that the petitioners were not adhoc
employees and further from perusal of the
Judgment and Order dated 19-08-1992, it is
also apparent that the writ court was
cautious enough regarding variations of the
posts falling under the purview of the U.P.
Public Service Commission and outside of
the purview of U.P. Public Service
Commission
and
therefore,
as
on
4 All. Rajendra Singh & Ors. Vs. Prabhu Narayan Singh V.C. L.D.A. Lko. & Anr.
67
immediate direction, it is observed that 'if
the posts are not within the purview of U.P.
Public Service Commission, the opposite
party will regularize the services of the
petitioners, within the said period.' This
clearly shows that the exercise and steps,
which are necessarily to be carried out,
were in the knowledge of the writ court
and the writ court could not have
speculated that number of litigations
would be instituted in future and which
will
cause
delay
in
exercise
of
regularization proceedings.

30. The Judgment and Order dated
19-08-1992 was assailed in Special
Appeal No. 39 of 1993, wherein an
interim
order
was
passed
and
the
Judgment and Order dated 19-08-1992
was stayed and the Special Appeal No. 39
of 1993 was finally decided on 30-102017, on the statement of the appellants
that the special appeal has been rendered
infructuous, though no objection was ever
raised by the counsel for the petitioners at
that point of time.

31. If the petitioners are taking a
stand that the exercise of preparing the
select list was carried out vide order
dated 22-07-1997, wherein the names of
the petitioners also find place, but, the
same was never challenged by them,
which
shows
that
principally
the
petitioners, were satisfied that some
exercises
are
being
done
for
regularization of their services, but, as
soon as the order dated 22-07-1997 was
found as unsustainable by Hon'ble Single
Judge in the writ petitions, the petitioners
immediately ran to challenge the same by
way of instituting special appeals and
ultimately, they succeeded and thereafter,
the exercise was done and admittedly, their
services were regularized in the year 2003.

32. Further there was no provision
under 20-A of the Rules, 1985 regarding
regularisation of daily wage or muster
roll employee against the post comes
under purview of U.P. Public Service
Commission and therefore, the Rules
were amended vide 7th Amendment,2001
and thereafter, the regularization exercise
became
possible,
particularly,
with
respect to the petitioners, which indicates
the earnest efforts of the State, regarding
compliance of the order of the writ court.

33. This court is also aware that the
interim order passed in Special Appeal No.
39 of 1993, wherein the Judgment and
Order dated 19-08-1992 was stayed for
quite long time and that could only be
dismissed in the year 2017, when the
statement was given by the appellants that
the same has become infructuous.

34. When this court examines the
matter on it's facts and law that whether
there
is
any
deliberate
or
wilful
disobedience on the part of the opposite
parties? it borne out that there was no rule
or regulation with respect to regularization
of the services of the petitioners as they
were not appointed on adhoc basis but, they
were working as work-charge or daily
wages and therefore, regularization of their
services could have been done after the
amendment in the rules and the petitioners
have failed to substantiate that no exercise
or any steps are taken or carried out, for
regularization of their services. Number of
letters
were
written
by
the
State
Government to the U.P. Public Service
Commission, by the time of preparation of
the select list and the effort of the State
Government
is
apparent
regarding
substantive exercise for regularizing the
services of the petitioners.
68 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

35. The petitioners have also failed to
substantiate that the opposite parties have
intentionally not considered the claim for
regularization of their services and they
have also failed to demonstrate that the
exercises, which were being carried out by
the
State
Government
including
the
preparation of select list dated 22-07-1997
as well as the litigations challenging the
action of the State Government while
proceeding with the regularization of the
services of the petitioners, were not in their
knowledge.

36. While the direction in the order
dated 19.08.1992, the words 'taking steps'
is said meaningfully, as the same clearly
encapsulates the intention and cautiousness
of the writ court regarding the time taking
process of regularization. At the same time,
the writ court was also cautious enough
regarding the nature of the posts, which are
under the purview of U.P. Public Service
Commission and therefore, the time which
was consumed either in several set of
litigations or in the exercises done to ease
out the process of regularization, enough to
show that the element of deliberate or
intentional disobedience is missing in the
present matter.

37. It is trite law that the willful and
deliberate defiance of the order is pivotal
aspect in so far as adjudicating the
contempt proceedings against a contemnor.
It is the factual matrix, which can be
interpreted and looked into, to come to a
final conclusion that is there any intention
of the alleged contemnor to commit
defiance of any order or direction passed by
the court.