# Saifuddin Ahmad v. Kalpnath Ram, D.I.O.S., Sonbhadra and others

- **Citation:** (2003) 1 ILRA 27
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2002-12-10
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Contempt Petition No. 4194 of 2000
- **Bench:** Sunil Ambwani
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/saifuddin-ahmad-v-kalpnath-ram-d-i-o-s-sonbhadra-and-others-40051
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Contempt of Court Act- Section 12 willful
disobedience - applicant being B.T.C.
Teacher- permitted to take class VI to
VIII by the corporation- the institution
run
and
managed
by
the
State
Corporation- service regulated by U.P.
Cement
Corporation
Ltd.
Employees
service Rule 1977- writ petition allowed
without
impleading
the
proper
authorities- applicant was permitted to
take
higher
classes
under
staffing
patterns without approval of D.I.O.S.-
Liability of payment of salary cannot be
suddled upon educational authorities- No
willful disobedience disclosed- Notices
discharged.

Held- para 10

The
college
is
being
run
by
an
autonomous body and was exempted
from the Payment of Salaries Act, 1971.
The order in the writ petition is binding
only on the respondents who were
impleaded in the writ petition. The
corporation has been wound up and is
under liquidation. It has complied with
the order by permitting petitioner and
allowing him to take classes VI, VII and
VIII. The responsibility of payment of
salary is of the corporation. The a
educational
authorities
cannot
be
compelled to pay the salary to petitioner
as the approval was not taken before
petitioner was allowed to take higher
classes and that staffing pattern was not
approved by them. The petitioner was
teaching under a contract with the
corporation and thus the liability of
payment salary cannot be saddled upon
educational authorities.
Case law discussed:
2001 (1) ESC-583
1990 (2) UPLBEC- 1221
AIR 1970 SC-1767

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1 All] Saifuddin Ahmad Vs. Kalpnath Ram, D.I.O.S., Sonbhadra and others
27
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.12.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUNIL AMBWANI, J.

Civil Misc. Contempt Petition No. 4194 of
2000

Saifuddin Ahmad

...Appellant
Versus
Kalpnath Ram, District Inspector of
Schools, Sonbhadra and others

 ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Yogesh Agarwal

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri K.C. Vishwakarma

Contempt of Court Act- Section 12 willful
disobedience - applicant being B.T.C.
Teacher- permitted to take class VI to
VIII by the corporation- the institution
run
and
managed
by
the
State
Corporation- service regulated by U.P.
Cement
Corporation
Ltd.
Employees
service Rule 1977- writ petition allowed
without
impleading
the
proper
authorities- applicant was permitted to
take
higher
classes
under
staffing
patterns without approval of D.I.O.S.-
Liability of payment of salary cannot be
suddled upon educational authorities- No
willful disobedience disclosed- Notices
discharged.

Held- para 10

The
college
is
being
run
by
an
autonomous body and was exempted
from the Payment of Salaries Act, 1971.
The order in the writ petition is binding
only on the respondents who were
impleaded in the writ petition. The
corporation has been wound up and is
under liquidation. It has complied with
the order by permitting petitioner and
allowing him to take classes VI, VII and
VIII. The responsibility of payment of
salary is of the corporation. The a
educational
authorities
cannot
be
compelled to pay the salary to petitioner
as the approval was not taken before
petitioner was allowed to take higher
classes and that staffing pattern was not
approved by them. The petitioner was
teaching under a contract with the
corporation and thus the liability of
payment salary cannot be saddled upon
educational authorities.
Case law discussed:
2001 (1) ESC-583
1990 (2) UPLBEC- 1221
AIR 1970 SC-1767

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani, J.)

1. This contempt petition has been
filed by petitioner informing this court
that order dated 5.2.1998 passed in writ
petition no. 20178 of 1989 quashing the
impugned order dated 19.9.1989 and
directing that the petitioner shall be
regularised as teacher of Classes VI, VII
and VIII with all consequential benefits.

2. It is alleged in the contempt
petition that petitioner is a Teacher in
Intermediate College known as U.P. State
Cement Corporation Ltd. Dala Cement
Factory, Dala, district Sonbhadra . He has
been working and taking the classes VI to
X in the college for several years but was
being treated as Teacher, belonging to
Basic sections of the college and was
absorbed in C.T. Grade which was
converted into L.T. Grade from 1989. A
writ petition was filed by him which was
allowed with the aforesaid directions.

3. Petitioner served a copy of order
alongwith representations dated 26.3.1999
and 20.8.1999 but no action was taken.
He is still being paid the salary
permissible to basic section inspite of
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
28 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
service of order upon the respondents
which amounts to willful contempt of the
order passed by this Court.

4.

Notices
were
issued
on
23.11.2000 directing the petitioner to
delete the name of Sri J.P. Rai, Joint
Director of Education, Mirzapur Region,
Mirzapur , who according to the Court,
was unnecessarily impleaded as a party in
the matter. Notices were issued on
6.8.2002 directing Sri Kalp Nath Rai,
District Inspector of Schools, Sonbhadra
to be present on 16.8.2002 to explain his
position and for framing of charges.

5. A counter affidavit of Sri Kalp
Nath Ram, District Inspector of Schools,
Sonbhadra has been filed stating that
Cement
Factory
Inter
College
is
established and running after recognition
of Intermediate Education Board UP
Cement
Corporation
Dala,
district
Sonbhadra and the services of its
employees are regulated by U.P. Cement
Corporation Limited employee Service
1977 and the payment is being made
under Wage Board Niyamawali. The
institution is exempted from Section 13 of
Payment of salary Act and that only "
Anuraaksha Anudan' is given upto the
High School for payment of salary.
Petitioner was appointed as a Urdu
Teacher in Primary School. Dala which
have a different status to the Intermediate
Education and the respondents are not
responsible for any internal compromise
between
the
Corporation
and
its
employee. The District Inspector of
Schools, Sonbhadra gave a statement to
the court that the subject matter has to be
referred to the Director of Education.

6. Sri Yogesh Agarwal, learned
counsel appearing for petitioner, submits
that the institution is receiving the
maintenance grant and has relied upon a
statement of salary, filed in civil misc.
writ petition no. 18174 of 2000. The
record of the writ petition was summoned
in which petitioner's name was found
place at serial no. 35 but has been scored
out by the Manager of the college from
the salary bill. According to the learned
counsel for petitioner, the order of this
court has not been complied with and that
the petitioner has been discriminated as
against other teachers of secondary
education in the same school.

7. On 24.4.2002, the Court found the
U.P. Cement Corporation has been wound
up
in
December,
1998
and
the
proceedings for sale/rehabilitation of the
entire assets of the company is pending in
special appeal in this Court. The official
liquidator, representing the company (in
liquidation) informed that Company court
has passed a detailed order on 6.2.2002
directing that the Cement Factory Inter
College Ghanar be also considered on
priority to be brought in the grant-in-aid
list. Under the circumstances, the court
awaited the response from the Secretary
of Education and adjourned the matter to
be listed in the 2nd week of July, 2002 on
16.8.2002, the court find that the matter
with regard to the payment of salary of
teachers required consideration at the
secretary level. Once again, Sri Kalp Nath
Ram appeared in court on 24.9.2002 in
person and informed the court that the
orders have not been complied with as the
matter has been referred to the Education
Secretary (Madhyamik) U.P. Lucknow.
Since considerable delay has been caused,
the Court directed that the notices be
issued
to
the
Education
Secretary
(Madhyamik), U.P. to be present in court
alongwith the record of the case on
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1 All] Saifuddin Ahmad Vs. Kalpnath Ram, D.I.O.S., Sonbhadra and others
29
21.10.2002. On the next date, a short
adjournment was sought and today, i.e.
12.1.2002, when the matter was taken up,
Sri Mukul Singhal, Education Secretary
(Madhyamik) U.P. appeared in person
before the Court.

8. Sri Mukul Singhal Education
Secretary (Madhyamik) U.P. informed the
Court that the State is not liable for
payment of salary but it only provides
assistance to the colleges in secondary
education. The college was being run by
the U.P. State Cement Corporation. The
staffing pattern and condition of service
was regulated by the Corporation. He
informs that petitioner had not impleaded
the educational authorities in the writ
petition and thus full and correct facts
have not been disclosed to the Court. In
the writ petition the parties impleaded
included the officers and employees of
U.P. State Cement Corporation with its
unit at Dala, district Sonbhadra and the
Principal of the College. Petitioner may
have been allowed to take classes by the
management of Corporation but such
action do not have any approval of the
authorities of education department. The
state has not taken any liability with
regard to the payment of petitioner's
salary. The corporation may have given
the liberty for taking classes of VI, VII
and VIII for which the department cannot
be held responsible. According to him, the
State Government is not liable to pay the
salary of petitioner and that if there is
liability, it is of the management of
Corporation which was an autonomous
body.

9. Sri Yogesh Agarwal, learned
counsel for petitioner submits that the
petitioner must be paid the salary on the
principles of equal work. Petitioner was
allowed to work in higher classes since
1982. The permission was granted. The
educational authorities were fully aware
of
the
petitioner's
work
and
that
maintenance grant includes the salary of
teachers. Petitioner is being discriminated
and that the State administration cannot
shirk its responsibility for ensuring to
provide the resources for payment of
salary. It is for the administration to find
out the ways and means for securing the
funds for the purpose. He has relied upon
decision of Supreme Court in Chandigarh
Administration and others vs. Mrs. Rajni
Vali and others, 2001 ESC 583 for the
above proposition and has also relied
upon the judgment of this Court reported
in 1990 UPLBEC (12) 1221 and the
judgment of Supreme Court in AIR 1970
SC 1767 for the proposition that the Court
can execute its order in contempt
jurisdiction.

10. The disobedience of order can be
punished under Sections 11/12 of the
Contempt of the Court Act, 1972 if it is
knowingly and will fully disobeyed.
Petitioner did not care to implead the
educational authorities in the writ petition
and thus full facts could not be brought to
the notice of the Court. The college is
being run by an autonomous body and
was exempted from ;the Payment of
Salaries Act, 1971. The order in the writ
petition
is
binding
only
on
the
respondents who were impleaded in the
writ petition. The corporation has been
wound up and is under liquidation. It has
complied with the order by permitting
petitioner and allowing him to take
classes
VI,
VII
and
VIII.
The
responsibility of payment of salary is of
the
corporation.
The
educational
authorities cannot be compelled to pay the
salary to petitioner as the approval was
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
30 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
not taken before petitioner was allowed
to take higher classes and that staffing
pattern was not approved by them. The
petitioner was teaching under a contract
with the corporation and thus the liability
of payment of salary cannot be saddled
upon educational authorities.

11. In the facts and circumstances of
the case, I cannot hold the respondents
guilty
of
wilfully
and
knowingly
disobeying the orders of the Court. The
contempt
petition
is
accordingly
dismissed
and
notices
issued
are
discharged.

The record of writ petition be
detached and be listed separately.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 9TH DECEMBER,
2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7646 of 1998

Smt. Hasina Bibi and others ...Petitioners
Versus
VIth Additional District Judge, Allahabad
and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the petitioners:
Sri M. Islam

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri K.K. Nirkhi
S.C.

Code of Civil Procedure Order 21- rule 2-
Execution
of
Compromise
Decree-
execution court directed for compliance
of terms of compromise - revisional court
instead of remanding the case- set-aside the order passed by the Trail court
on the pretext after compromise new
tenancy has been created- hence no
question of execution of compromise
decree- various legal aspect discussed.

Held- para 6

Be that as it may, in view of the rival
contentions,
the
decision
of
the
revisional court deserves to be set aside
on the ground that the Court below
should consider the relevant contentions
and the law referred to above and
thereafter record a findings, which has
not been done in the order impugned in
the present writ petition while allowing
the
revision
and
dismissing
the
objection. There is yet another reason
that the revisional court while exercising
the revisional power for setting aside the
finding recorded by the trial court should
have remanded the matter to the trial
court, which has not been done. For this
reason alone, the order impugned in the
present petition deserves to be set aside
and is hereby set aside.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.)

1. By means of present writ petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India petitioners, who were the opposite
parties before the revisional court, have
challenged the order passed by the
revisional court dated 13.11.1997, copy of
which has been annexed as Annexure -4
to
the
writ
petition,
whereby
the
revisional court has allowed the revision
filed by the revisionist permitting the
execution of the compromise decree,
which has been arrived at between the
parties during the pendency of the
revision before the revisional court.

2. The facts leading to the filing of
present writ petition are that petitionersland lord filed suit no. 642 of 1977 for
arrears of rent and ejectment against the
respondent no. 3 (defendant in the suit).
The aforesaid suit was decreed for arrears