# Smt. Suman Devi v. Sri Avinash Kumar Yadav, Social Welfare Officer, Fatehpur

- **Citation:** (2024) 12 ILRA 33
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-12-20
- **Case number:** Contempt Application (Civil) No. 6731 of 2024
- **Bench:** Salil Kumar Rai
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-suman-devi-v-sri-avinash-kumar-yadav-social-welfare-officer-fatehpur-51212
- **Pages:** 21

## Headnote

Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950 -
Article 215 - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
- Sections 2, 2(b) & 12 - Uttar Pradesh
Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules,
1981 - Rule 29:- Contempt Application -
willful disobedience of order passed in writ
petition
-
applicant-petitioner
who
was
employed as Assistant Teacher in an Institution
which governed by the Department of Social
Welfare, UP & managed by an elected
Committee of Management - petitioner was to
retire on 10.04.2022, therefore, under Rule 29
of Rules, 1981, she claimed benefit of extended
employment end of session i.e. till 31.03.2023 -
her claim for session benefit was referred before
the DSWO, Fatehpur who, in turn, referred to
the Director, Department of Social Welfare -
who further referred the matter to the Principal
Secretary, Department of Social Welfare - when
her claim was pending she filed writ petition -
during pendency of writ petition - Principal
Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, UP
allowed session benefit in her favour -
consequently, writ petition was disposed of with
direction that the petitioner shall be paid her
salary for the extended period of her service, if
there was no legal impediment - Special
Secretary, DoSW rejected her claim of salary, on
the ground of no work no pay - contempt
proceeding
-
issue
notices
-
personal
appearance - court held guilty of willful
disobedience of orders - court finds that, the act
of the Special Secretary in trying to pass the
buck and his role in preventing payment of
salary to the applicant in terms of the order
passed by this court shows that the apology
tendered by the Special Secretary is not sincere
and has been given only to avoid punishment in
proceedings - held, any act or order of any
executive authority or other person which
nullifies or frustrates the orders or directions of
a court would amount to contempt of court -
thus, Special Secretary, DoSW, UP is hereby
sentence to detention in the Court till the rising
of court and with a fine of Rs. 2000/- -
directions
issued
-
Contempt
Application,
disposed of, accordingly. (Para - 13, 18, 25, 27,
28, 29, 30)

Contempt Application Disposed of. (E-11)
List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,992 of 73,535. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39992 for what follows._

12 All. Smt. Suman Devi Vs. Sri Avinash Kumar Yadav, Social Welfare Officer, Fatehpur
33
Section 437 the accused would have two
courses open. It is always this right to move
for bail afresh before the proper forum but
his right to challenge the validity of the
order of cancellation of bail cannot be
taken away simply for the reason that he
has a right to pray for bail again. This
challenge could not be made in a petition
under Section 397, Cr. P.C. as an order
recording bail or its cancellation is but an
interlocutory order and the validity of the
order, therefore, could only be challenged
in a proceeding under Section 482, Cr.
P.C. invoking the inherent powers of the
Court to prevent abuse of process of any
Court or to secure the ends of justice. The
objection of the complainant in this behalf
is thus not tenable and this Court can look
to the validity of the cancellation of bail in
exercise of its powers under Section 482,
Cr. P.C. It must also be indicated that
cancellation of bail is normally to be made
only on the proof of misuse of privilege of
bail
either
by
abscondence
or
by
interference with investigation or by threats
to witnesses."

18. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Puran and Shekhar and another
(supra) was pleased to hold as under:-

"16.
...............................When
Section 439(2) grants to the High Court
the power to cancel bail, it necessarily
follows that such powers can be exercised
also in respect of Orders passed by the
Court of Sessions. Of course cancellation
of bail has to be on principles set out
hereinabove and only in appropriate
cases.

17. Further, even if it is an
interlocutory order, the High Court's
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 is
not affected by the provisions of Section
397 (3) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. That the High Court may
refuse to exercise its jurisdiction under
Section 482 on the basis of self-imposed
restriction is a different aspect. It cannot
be denied that for securing the ends of
justice, the High Court can interfere with
the order which causes miscarriage of
justice or is palpably illegal or is
unjustified. [Re. Madhu Limaye v. State of
Maharasthra (1977) 4 SCC 551 and
Krishnan and Another v. Krishnaveni and
Another (1997) 4 SCC 241]."

19. the validity of the order passed
under Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C. The order
dated 10.9.2024 passed by the Court of
Sessions, Ghaziabad rejecting the Bail
Cancellation Application, at the instance of
the
applicant/First
Informant
can
be
questioned
before
the
Court
in
an
application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The
instant Bail Cancellation Application is
held to be not maintainable and is
dismissed, leaving it open for the applicant
to assail the order dated 10.9.2024 passed
by the Sessions Court, Ghaziabad in
appropriate proceedings. There shall be no
order as to costs. .
----------
(2024) 12 ILRA 33
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.12.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SALIL KUMAR RAI, J.

Contempt Application (Civil) No. 6731 of 2024

Smt. Suman Devi ...Applicant
Versus
Sri Avinash Kumar Yadav, Social Welfare
Officer, Fatehpur ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Bhawesh Pratap Singh
34 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for the Opposite Party:

Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950 -
Article 215 - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
- Sections 2, 2(b) & 12 - Uttar Pradesh
Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules,
1981 - Rule 29:- Contempt Application -
willful disobedience of order passed in writ
petition
-
applicant-petitioner
who
was
employed as Assistant Teacher in an Institution
which governed by the Department of Social
Welfare, UP & managed by an elected
Committee of Management - petitioner was to
retire on 10.04.2022, therefore, under Rule 29
of Rules, 1981, she claimed benefit of extended
employment end of session i.e. till 31.03.2023 -
her claim for session benefit was referred before
the DSWO, Fatehpur who, in turn, referred to
the Director, Department of Social Welfare -
who further referred the matter to the Principal
Secretary, Department of Social Welfare - when
her claim was pending she filed writ petition -
during pendency of writ petition - Principal
Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, UP
allowed session benefit in her favour -
consequently, writ petition was disposed of with
direction that the petitioner shall be paid her
salary for the extended period of her service, if
there was no legal impediment - Special
Secretary, DoSW rejected her claim of salary, on
the ground of no work no pay - contempt
proceeding
-
issue
notices
-
personal
appearance - court held guilty of willful
disobedience of orders - court finds that, the act
of the Special Secretary in trying to pass the
buck and his role in preventing payment of
salary to the applicant in terms of the order
passed by this court shows that the apology
tendered by the Special Secretary is not sincere
and has been given only to avoid punishment in
proceedings - held, any act or order of any
executive authority or other person which
nullifies or frustrates the orders or directions of
a court would amount to contempt of court -
thus, Special Secretary, DoSW, UP is hereby
sentence to detention in the Court till the rising
of court and with a fine of Rs. 2000/- -
directions
issued
-
Contempt
Application,
disposed of, accordingly. (Para - 13, 18, 25, 27,
28, 29, 30)

Contempt Application Disposed of. (E-11)
List of Cases cited:

1. Angad Yadav & ors.Vs State of U.P. & ors.,
Neutral Citation No. - 2017:AHC:159745,

2. CELIR LLP Vs Ms. Sumati Prasad Bafna & ors.
- Contempt Petition (C) Nos. 158 and 159 of
2024 - order dated 13.12.2024,

3. Smt. Suman Devi Vs St. of U.P & ors. - Writ A
No.19650 of 2022 - order dated 4.3.2024,

4. Ram Kishan v. Tarun Bajaj & ors. reported in
(2014) 16 SCC 204,

5. Murray & Co. Vs Ashok Kr. Newatia & anr.
reported in (2000) 2 SCC 367,

6. Pushpaben & anr. Vs Narandas Badiani & anr.
- reported in (1979) 2 SCC 394,

7. Bihar State Government Secondary School
Teachers Association Vs Ashok Kumar Sinha & ors.
(2014) 7 SCC 416,

8. In Re : - Sanjiv Datta & ors. (1995) 3 SCC 619,

(Delivered by Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai, J.)

1. The present contempt application
has been filed claiming that the order dated
4.3.2024 passed by this Court in Writ - A
No. 19650 of 2022 (Smt. Suman Devi vs.
State of U.P. & 4 Ors.) has been willfully
disobeyed by the State officers. In the writ
petition, the State of Uttar Pradesh through
Principal Secretary, Department of Social
Welfare, Government of Uttar Pradesh,
Lucknow, the Director, Department of
Social Welfare, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow,
the
District
Social
Welfare
Officer,
Fatehpur, the District Basic Education
Officer,
District
Fatehpur
and
the
Committee of Management of Dr. B.R.
Ambedkar Shiksha Sadan, Abu Nagar,
Fatehpur
(hereinafter
referred
to
as,
'Institution')
were
impleaded
as
respondents.
12 All. Smt. Suman Devi Vs. Sri Avinash Kumar Yadav, Social Welfare Officer, Fatehpur
35

2. The relevant facts of the case are
that the Institution is governed by the
Department of Social Welfare and is
managed by an elected Committee of
Management. The service conditions of its
Teachers are governed by the Uttar Pradesh
Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules,
1981 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Rules,
1981'). The petitioner was employed, on a
regular basis, as Assistant Teacher in the
Institution. The retirement age of the
Assistant Teachers under the Rules, 1981 is
62 years and it is claimed that under Rule
29 of the Rules, 1981, a Teacher who
retires during an academic session shall
continue to work till the end of the
academic session and such period of
service is deemed as extended period of
employment. By virtue of the Government
Order dated 17.8.2015, the benefit of Rule
29 of the Rules, 1981 has been extended to
the
Institutions
governed
by
the
Department
of
Social
Welfare.
The
Government Order specifies that the
academic session starts from 1st of April
and ends on 31st of March. The date of
birth of the petitioner is 11.4.1960. The
petitioner was to retire on 10.4.2022,
therefore, under Rule 29, she claimed
benefit
of
extended
employment
till
31.3.2023. The claim of the applicant for
session benefit, i.e., extended employment,
was referred by the Manager of the
Committee
of
Management
of
the
Institution as well as by the District Basic
Education Officer to the District Social
Welfare Officer, Fatehpur who, in turn,
vide his recommendation letter dated
16.2.2022 referred the matter to the
Director, Department of Social Welfare. A
copy of the letter dated 16.2.2022 was also
sent to the Principal as well as the Manager
of the Committee of Management of the
Institution. The letter dated 16.2.2022
prohibited the Manager and the Principal of
the Institution from taking any work from
the applicant after 30.4.2022 without the
approval of the State Government. The
Director, Department of Social Welfare,
Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow
referred the matter of the applicant to the
Principal Secretary, Department of Social
Welfare vide his letter dated 27.4.2022.
However, the claim of the applicant
remained pending and no orders were
passed giving her benefit of extended
employment / session benefit, therefore, the
applicant filed Writ - A No. 19650 of 2022
claiming the aforesaid benefit. While the
writ petition was pending, an order dated
18.1.2023 was passed by the Principal
Secretary, Department of Social Welfare,
Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow
allowing
session
benefit
/
extended
employment to the applicant till 31.3.2023.
A consequential letter dated 21.1.2023 was
issued by the Manager of the Committee of
Management of the Institution asking the
petitioner to join in the Institution and in
response to the letter dated 21.1.2023, the
petitioner joined as Assistant Teacher on
the same date. Writ - A No. 19650 of 2022
was heard by this Court on 4.3.2024 by
which date, the relief claimed by the
applicant to be given session benefit had
become infructuous as the said benefit had
already been extended to the applicant and
she had been allowed to join as Assistant
Teacher in the Institution from 21.1.2023.
However, the applicant was given salary
only from the date she joined in the
Institution, i.e., from 21.1.2023 and was not
given salary for the period starting from
1.5.2022 to 21.1.2023. It appears from a
reading of the order dated 4.3.2024 that
during the hearing of Writ - A No. 19650
of 2022 on 4.3.2024, the counsel for the
applicant raised the aforesaid issue and
sought salary for the applicant for the
period between 1.5.2022 and 21.1.2023.
36 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
This Court vide its order dated 4.3.2024
allowed the oral prayer of the applicant and
disposed of the writ petition with the
direction that the petitioner shall be paid
her salary for the period 1.4.2022 to
21.1.2023 expeditiously, if there was no
legal impediment. The order of this Court
is being reproduced below : -

"1. Heard Sri Bhavesh Pratap
Singh, learned counsel for petitioner and
Ms. Shruti Malviya, learned Brief Holder
for State-Respondents.

2. Petitioner has attained age of
superannuation after completion of 62
years on 11.04.2022, which falls in mid
academic session as there is no dispute that
academic session commenced from 01st
April of relevant year.

3. Petitioner was not granted
benefit of Rule 29 of U.P. Basic Education
(Teachers) Service Rules, 1981, i.e., to
extend her services till the end of session,
i.e., upto 31st March, 2023. Therefore,
petitioner approached this Court by way of
filing present writ petition on 17.11.2022
seeking aforesaid benefit.

4. During pendency of this writ
petition petitioner was granted benefit of
extended academic session by order dated
21.01.2023 till 31st March, 2023 and said
order has been placed on record by way of
filing
a
supplementary
affidavit
on
12.04.2023.

5. Though prayers of this writ
petition
are
not
effective
amended,
however, an argument has been raised by
learned
counsel
for
petitioner
that
petitioner is entitled for her monthly salary
from 01.04.2022 to 21.01.2023 and this
period cannot be considered as "no work
no pay". In order to substantiate his
argument, learned counsel has placed
reliance on a Coordinate Bench judgment
of this Court in Angad Yadav and others
vs. State of U.P. and others, Neutral
Citation No. - 2017:AHC:159745 and
submits that similar controversy was
decided in favour of petitioners therein.

6. Learned counsel also submits
that an appeal filed against aforesaid
judgment by Basic Shiksha Parishad being
Special Appeal No. 505 of 2018, was
dismissed in default on 11.12.2018 and as
per information status remained same till
date.

7.
Learned
Brief
Holder
appearing for State-Respondents submits
that matter is still under consideration
before
Director,
Directorate
Social
Welfare, U.P. However, she fairly submits
that
above
referred
judgment
has
substantiate the claim of petitioner.

8. In aforesaid circumstances,
since similar controversy has already been
decided by Coordinate Bench of this Court
in Angad Yadav (supra) in favour of
petitioner, which has been affirmed by
Division Bench since appeal thereof is
dismissed in default and has not been
restored till date, therefore, there is no
reason not to allow the oral prayer made
by petitioner since she was not allowed to
continue the job of teaching for above
referred relevant period and benefit of
extended session was provided belatedly in
the month of March, 2023.

9.
The
writ
petition
is
accordingly disposed of with direction that
salary for the period from 01.04.2022 to
21.01.2023 shall also be paid to petitioner
expeditiously,
if
there
is
no
legal
impediment."

3. Despite the aforesaid order dated
4.3.20024, the applicant was not paid her
salary for the period 1.5.2022 to 21.1.2023,
therefore, the present contempt application
was filed by the petitioner in October, 2024
impleading the then District Social Welfare
12 All. Smt. Suman Devi Vs. Sri Avinash Kumar Yadav, Social Welfare Officer, Fatehpur
37
Officer, District Fatehpur as opposite party
in the case. Notices were issued to the
opposite party by this Court vide its order
dated 24.10.2024 fixing 25.11.2024. On
25.11.2024, Sri Avanish Kumar Yadav, the
then District Social Welfare Officer filed
his affidavit dated 21.11.2024 disclosing
that Sri Rajnish Chandra, the Special
Secretary, Department of Social Welfare,
Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow
had passed an order dated 4.11.2024
directing that because the petitioner had not
worked as Assistant Teacher in the
Institution from 1.5.2022 to 20.1.2023,
therefore, on the principle of 'no work no
pay', she was not entitled to salary for the
aforesaid period. It was also disclosed that
as a result of the aforesaid order dated
4.11.2024, Sri Prasoon Rai, the then
District Backward Class Welfare Officer,
Fatehpur who was also temporarily holding
the charge of District Social Welfare
Officer
(Development),
Fatehpur
had
passed an order dated 9.11.2024 denying
salary to the applicant for the period
1.5.2022 to 21.1.2023. The orders dated
4.11.2024 passed by the Special Secretary
and 9.11.2024 passed by the District Social
Welfare Officer (Development) were also
annexed with the aforesaid affidavit. A
reading of the order dated 4.11.2024 shows
that the order has been passed by the
Special Secretary on the recommendations
of the Director, Department of Social
Welfare who had recommended that the
petitioner was not entitled to salary for the
period between 1.5.2022 to 21.1.2023. A
reading of the order dated 4.11.2024 also
shows that in his recommendations, the
Director had also referred to the order
passed by this Court in Writ - A No. 19650
of 2022 and the said order had been taken
note of by the Special Secretary in his order
dated 4.11.2024. Interestingly, in the
affidavit dated 21.11.2024, it was stated
that the order dated 4.3.2024 passed by this
Court had been complied by the State
Government in letter and spirit. The
aforesaid claim was made in reference to
the passing of the orders dated 4.11.2024
and 9.11.2024. It is relevant to note that the
orders dated 4.11.2024 and 9.11.2024 were
passed after this Court issued notices in the
present contempt case.

4. This Court while hearing the case
on 25.11.2024 observed that the orders
dated 4.11.2024 and 9.11.2024 override the
order dated 4.3.2024 passed by this Court.
The Court further observed as follows : -

"A reading of the order dated
04.03.2024
shows
that
the
issue
regarding the entitlement of the applicant
for salary for the period between April,
2022 and 20.01.2023, i.e., the period she
was not allowed to work as Assistant
Teacher because session benefit was
wrongly denied to her was considered by
this Court and the claim of the State
respondents based on the principle of no
work no pay was rejected by this Court.
Evidently, the orders dated 04.11.2024
and 09.11.2024 passed by the Special
Secretary as well as the District Social
Welfare Officer overriding the orders
passed by this Court are contumacious.
The Special Secretary, Uttar Pradesh
Social Welfare Department and the
District
Social
Welfare
Officer
(Development), Fatehpur have committed
contempt of this Court for which they are
liable to be tried.

The Special Secretary, Social
Welfare Section - II, Government of Uttar
Pradesh, Lucknow and the District Social
Welfare Officer (Development), Fatehpur
shall be personally present in the Court on
the next date fixed for framing of charges."
38 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

5. The case was listed on 3.12.2024
and on the said date, the Special Secretary,
the present District Social Welfare Officer
(Development) and Sri Prasoon Rai who
had passed the order dated 9.11.2024 filed
their affidavits. At this stage, it would also
be relevant to record that in his affidavit,
Sri Prasoon Rai stated that he was posted as
District Backward Class Welfare Officer,
Fatehpur and it was Ms. Shalini who was
posted as District Social Welfare Officer
(Development), Fatehpur on 9.11.2024. It
has been stated in the affidavit that Ms.
Shalini was on medical leave between
12.9.2024 to 12.11.2024, therefore, during
the aforesaid period, Sri Prasoon Rai held
the additional charge of District Social
Welfare Officer (Development), Fatehpur.
In their affidavits filed on 3.12.2024, Ms.
Shalini, i.e., the District Social Welfare
Officer
(Development),
Fatehpur,
Sri
Prasoon Rai, i.e., the District Backward
Class Welfare Officer, Fatehpur and Sri
Rajnish Chandra, the Special Secretary,
Department of Social Welfare, Government
of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow pleaded that the
delay in payment of salary to the applicant
for the period 1.5.2022 to 21.1.2023 was
because the management of the Institution
had not sent the pay roll / attendance sheet
of the applicant / petitioner which was
necessary to pay the salary of the applicant
for the aforesaid period. Paragraph Nos. 6
to 11 of the affidavits of the Special
Secretary and the District Social Welfare
Officer
(Development),
Fatehpur
containing their stand are reproduced below
: -

"6. That is further submitted that
the payment of salary is made to the
teachers
on
the
basis
of
the
Pay
Role/Attendance duly provided by the
Manager of the Institution. It is again
submitted
that
the
Manager
of
the
Institution has approved and provided the
Pay-Roll/Attendance of the petitioner from
21.01.2023 to 31.03.2023 for which period
the payment has already been made.

7. That it is stated that the
Appointing Authority/ Manager of the
Institution in question has not provided the
Pay-Roll/Attendance Certificate of the
petitioner for the period of 01.05.2022 to
20.01.2023, it is therefore, the payment of
salary has not been made to the petitioner
for that period.

8. That it is respectfully submitted
that since the Manager of the institution is
the appointing authority of the applicant,
therefore,
the
pay-roll
/
attendance
certificate for the period of 01.05.2022 to
20.01.2023 can only be verified and
provided by the Manager, hence in this
regard, the District Social Welfare Officer
(Development) Fatehpur vide letter dated
25.11.2024 directed to the Manager of the
institution to provide the pay-roll /
attendance certificate for the period of
01.05.2022 to 20.01.2023 of the applicant,
so that further proceeding regarding the
payment of arrears of salary for the said
period be initiated in the light of the
direction issued by this Hon'ble Court,
otherwise legal action shall be taken
against the Manager of the institution.
Copy of the letter dated 25.11.2024 is being
filed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE
NO. 1 to this affidavit.

9. That it is respectfully submitted
that the deponent trying his/her level best
to comply with the writ court order
regarding the payment of salary for the
period of 01.05.2022 to 20.01.2023 to the
applicant but due to the reason aforesaid,
the arrears of salary for the period
01.05.2022 to 20.01.2023 could not be
made in favour of the applicant. The
inconvenience caused to this Hon'ble Court
12 All. Smt. Suman Devi Vs. Sri Avinash Kumar Yadav, Social Welfare Officer, Fatehpur
39
is highly regretted on the part of the
deponent.

10.
That
it
is
respectfully
submitted that since the matter is still
active consideration of the Manager of the
institution in question regarding to provide
the pay-roll / attendance certificate for the
period of 01.05.2022 to 20.01.2023 of the
applicant and the District Social Welfare
Officer (Development) Fatehpur also wrote
a letter to the Manager of the institution on
25.11.2024 and after obtaining the said
required document, the further proceeding
shall be initiated in the matter in
accordance with law.

11. That in the aforesaid manner,
there is no willful or deliberate delay in the
matter on the part of the deponent. The
delay caused in the matter due to aforesaid
reason. The inconvenience caused to this
Hon'ble Court is highly regretted on the
part of the deponent."

The Court through its order dated
3.12.2024 rejected the explanation of the
Special Secretary and the District Social
Welfare Officer noting that the pay roll /
attendance of the petitioner was not
required for compliance of the order passed
by this Court as by order dated 16.10.2022,
the
District
Social
Welfare
Officer,
Fatehpur had prohibited the Principal and
Manager of the Institution from taking any
teaching work from the petitioner without
the approval of the State Government,
therefore, the petitioner could not have
worked in the Institution between 1.5.2022
to 20.1.2023 as she had not been granted
the session benefit till 18.1.2023. The
subsequent discussion would show that the
explanation of the Special Secretary and
the District Social Welfare Officer for
having failed to comply with the orders of
this Court was false and an attempt to
mislead the Court. This Court vide its order
dated 3.12.2024 directed the District Social
Welfare Officer (Development) to ensure
full compliance of the order passed by this
Court by the next date fixed and further,
proceeded to frame charges against Sri
Rajnish Chandra, the Special Secretary,
Department of Social Welfare, Government
of Uttar Pradesh and Sri Prasoon Rai, the
District Backward Class Welfare Officer
who had passed the order dated 9.11.2024.
The relevant portion of the order dated
3.12.2024 is reproduced below : -

"The averments in the affidavits
filed by the Special Secretary and the
present District Social Welfare Officer
(Development) do not explain their failure
to comply with the order passed by this
Court.
Through
their
orders
dated
9.11.2024 and 4.11.2024, the previous
District
Social
Welfare
Officer
(Development) and the Special Secretary,
Department of Welfare, Government of
U.P, Lucknow substituted and nullified
the order passed by the Writ Court i.e., the
order dated 4.3.2024 passed by this Court
in Writ A No.19650 of 2022. At this stage,
it would be relevant to note that in his
order dated 16.10.2022, the then District
Social Welfare Officer, Fatehpur had
directed the Principal and the Manager of
the Institution not to take any teaching
work from the applicant without the
approval
of
the
State
Government.
Apparently, the applicant could not have
been present and could not have worked in
the
institution
between
1.5.2022
to
20.1.2023 because she had not been
granted the session benefit and further the
Principal and the Management of the
Institution had been prohibited from taking
any work from the applicant.

The Rights of the applicant for
back wages was also in issue before this
Court in Writ Petition No. 19650 of 2022
40 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and this Court vide its order dated 4.3.2024
held that the principle of 'no work no pay'
was not applicable in the present case as
the applicant was not allowed to continue
the job of teaching for the period between
April 2022 to 20.01.2023 and a categorical
direction was issued by this Court that the
petitioner shall be paid the salary for the
aforesaid period. It be noted that on
4.3.2024, no mandamus or any order was
required to allow the petitioner to join
because session benefit had already been
granted to the applicant by that date by the
government itself and the applicant was
permitted to work on the post of Assistant
Teacher from 21.1.2023. The applicant was
granted session benefit by the State
Government itself during the pendency of
the writ petition, therefore, the only issue
involved in the petition on 4.3.2024 was
regarding the rights of the applicant for
payment of salary for the period she was
not allowed to continue to work as
Assistant Teacher.

The aforesaid facts clearly lead
to the conclusion that the opposite party
nos. 2 & 3 i.e., the present Special
Secretary, Department of Social Welfare,
Government of U.P., Lucknow and the
previous District Social Welfare Officer
(Development), District Fatehpur have
willfully disobeyed the orders passed by the
Writ Court through their orders dated
4.11.2024 and 9.11.2024.

So far as the present District
Social Welfare Officer (Development),
Fatehpur is concerned, at present there is
nothing on record showing any willful
disobedience by her of the orders passed by
this Court especially in the circumstance
that assurance has been given by Shri
P.K.Giri, the Additional Advocate General
that back wages payable to the applicant
under the orders of the Writ Court shall be
paid within two days from today i.e., by
5.12.2024.

However, the Special Secretary
and the previous District Social Welfare
Officer (Development) are liable to be tried
for Contempt of Court. The said Officers
are accordingly charged as follows:

1. "You, Shri Rajneesh Chandra
presently posted as Special Secretary,
Department of Social Welfare, Government
of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow are hereby
charged for having violated and willfully
disobeyed the order dated 4.3.2024 passed
by this Court in Writ A No.19650 of 2022
(Smt.Suman Devi versus State of U.P and 4
others) by overriding it and consequently
nullifying it through your order dated
4.11.2024 by directing that the applicant
shall not be paid the salary for the period
between 1st May, 2022 to 20.1.2023. You,
therefore, show cause within one week from
today as to why you should not be tried and
punished under Section 12 of Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971 for deliberate and willful
disobedience of the order dated 4.3.2024
passed by this Court in Writ A No.19650 of
2022."

2. "You, Shri Prasoon Rai who
was posted as District Social Welfare
Officer
(Development),
Fatehpur
till
12.11.2024 are hereby charged for having
violated and willfully disobeyed the order
dated 4.3.2024 passed by this Court in Writ
A No.19650 of 2022 (Smt.Suman Devi
versus State of U.P and 4 others) by
overriding it and consequently nullifying it
through your order dated 9.11.2024 by
directing that the applicant shall not be
paid the salary for the period between 1st
May, 2022 to 20.1.2023. You, therefore,
show cause within one week from today as
to why you should not be tried and
punished under Section 12 of Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971 for deliberate and willful
disobedience of the order dated 4.3.2024
12 All. Smt. Suman Devi Vs. Sri Avinash Kumar Yadav, Social Welfare Officer, Fatehpur
41
passed by this Court in Writ A No.19650 of
2022."

Both of the aforesaid Officers
shall file their objection/reply/defense to
the aforesaid charge by 10.12.2024.

Put up again on 11.12.2024 on
which date, the contemnors Shri Rajneesh
Chandra, presently posted as Special
Secretary, Department of Social Welfare,
Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow
and Shri Prasoon Rai, previously District
Social Welfare Officer (Development),
Fatehpur and at present District Backward
Class Welfare Officer, Fatehpur shall be
personally present in the Court.

Even though charges have been
framed in presence of the aforesaid
contemnors, the Registrar (Compliance)
shall send a copy of this order to Shri
Rajneesh
Chandra,
presently
Special
Secretary, Department of Social Welfare,
Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow
and Shri Prasoon Rai, presently District
Backward Class Welfare Officer, Fatehpur
and previously District Social Welfare
Officer (Development), Fatehpur within 48
hours for necessary compliance.

It is clarified that by the next date
fixed, the present District Social Welfare
Officer (Development), Fatehpur shall also
be personally present in the Court and file
her compliance affidavit disclosing full
compliance of the order of the Writ Court."

7. When the case was taken up on
11.12.2024, Sri Rajnish Chandra, the
Special Secretary, Sri Prasoon Rai, the
present District Backward Class Welfare
Officer who had passed the order dated
9.11.2024 and also the present District
Social Welfare Officer were again present
in the Court and filed their affidavits
disclosing full compliance of the order
passed by this Court and that the amount
due to the applicant as arrears of salary for
the period between 1.5.2022 and 20.1.2023
had been credited in the account of the
petitioner / applicant. The officers referred
above also tendered their apologies for
having not complied with the order passed
by this Court. Sri Rajnish Chandra, the
Special Secretary, in his affidavit / reply to
the charges framed against him, apart from
tendering his apology, has also narrated
certain administrative steps allegedly taken
by him to ensure that such acts do not
happen in future and has stated that the
matter of the petitioner / applicant was
unnecessarily
referred
to
the
State
Government and further, the order dated
4.11.2024
had
been
passed
on
the
recommendations
of
the
Director,
Department of Social Welfare, Government
of Uttar Pradesh. It has been stated in the
affidavit of the Special Secretary that
adverse entries had been awarded to the
present District Social Welfare Officer
(Development) because of the delay in
payment of arrears of salary to the
applicant and for having unnecessarily
referred the matter to the Director,
Department of Social Welfare, Government
of Uttar Pradesh. It has been pleaded that
there is no willful disobedience by the
Special Secretary of the order passed by
this Court, therefore, the said officer be
discharged from contempt. In his affidavit /
reply, Sri Prasoon Rai has taken the
additional defense that the order dated
9.11.2024 was passed by him as a
consequence of the order dated 4.11.02024
passed
by
the
Special
Secretary,
Department of Social Welfare, Government
of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow.

8. It was pleaded by the Standing
Counsel that the order dated 4.11.2024 was
passed by the Special Secretary considering
the fact that the recommendation for not
paying the salary to the applicant /
42 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
petitioner for the period she had not worked
was made by the Director, Department of
Social Welfare, Government of Uttar
Pradesh. It was also pleaded that the
direction of this Court in its order dated
4.3.2024 was to pay salary to the petitioner
/ applicant from 1.5.2022 to 21.1.2023 only
if there was no legal impediment in doing
so and the orders dated 4.11.2024 and
9.11.2024 were passed on a misreading of
the order dated 4.3.2024. It was pleaded
that there was no intention on the part of
the charged officers to disobey the orders
passed by this Court, therefore, the
apologies tendered by the concerned
officers be accepted and the charged
officers be discharged from contempt.

9. I have considered the plea of the
contemnors and the submission of the
Additional Advocate General on their
behalf.

10. Civil contempt is defined in
Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971 to mean willful disobedience to
any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ
or other process of a court or willful breach
of an undertaking given to a court.

11. It was held by the Supreme Court
in its judgment dated 13.12.2024 passed in
Contempt Petition (C) Nos. 158 and 159 of
2024 (CELIR LLP vs. Ms. Sumati Prasad
Bafna & Ors.) that acts that attempt to
mislead the Court, obstruct its functioning
or frustrate its decisions distort the process
of justice and would amount to contempt. It
was observed by the Court that even in the
absence of specific mandates, the deliberate
conduct of parties aimed at frustrating court
proceedings or circumventing its eventual
decision may amount to contempt because
such actions strike at the heart of the
judicial process, undermining its authority
and obstructing its ability to deliver justice
effectively. It was further observed that any
contumacious conduct of the parties to
bypass or nullify the decision of the court
or render it ineffective or to frustrate the
proceedings of the court, or to enure any
undue advantage therefrom would amount
to contempt. It was further observed by the
Supreme Court that challenges to the
authority
of
Court
through
willful
disobedience or otherwise undermine the
rule of law and create the risk of anarchy. It
was observed that the courts should not
hesitate in wielding the weapon of
contempt for the proper administration of
justice and to ensure due compliance with
the order passed by it in order to maintain
and uphold the dignity of courts and
majesty of law. The observations of the
Supreme Court elucidating the law of
contempt are reproduced below : -

"182. In order to decide whether
the appellants are guilty of civil contempt,
it would be apposite to refer to Section 2(b)
of the Act, 1971, which reads as under: -

"2. Definitions.- In this Act,
unless the context otherwise requires,-
xxx xxx xxx

(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;"

183. ...

184. ...

185. Hence, the expression or
word "wilful" means act or omission
which is done voluntarily or intentionally
and with the specific intent to do
something which the law forbids or with
the specific intent to fail to do something
the law requires to be done, that is to say
with bad purpose either to disobey or to
12 All. Smt. Suman Devi Vs. Sri Avinash Kumar Yadav, Social Welfare Officer, Fatehpur
43
disregard the law. It signifies a deliberate
action done with evil intent or with a bad
motive or purpose.

186. ...

187. ...

188. In Ram Kishan v. Tarun
Bajaj & Ors. reported in (2014) 16 SCC
204 it was held that the contempt
jurisdiction conferred on to the law courts
power to punish an offender not only for
his wilful disobedience but also for
contumacious conduct or obstruction to the
majesty of law. It further observed that
such power has been conferred for the
simple reason that the respect and
authority commanded by the courts of law
are the greatest guarantee to an ordinary
citizen that his rights shall be protected
and the entire democratic fabric of the
society will crumble down if the respect of
the judiciary is undermined. The relevant
observations read as under: -

"11. The contempt jurisdiction
conferred on to the law courts power to
punish
an
offender
for
his
wilful
disobedience/contumacious
conduct
or
obstruction to the majesty of law, for the
reason
that
respect
and
authority
commanded by the courts of law are the
greatest guarantee to an ordinary citizen
that his rights shall be protected and the
entire democratic fabric of the society will
crumble down if the respect of the judiciary
is undermined. Undoubtedly, the contempt
jurisdiction is a powerful weapon in the
hands of the courts of law but that by itself
operates as a string of caution and unless,
thus, otherwise satisfied beyond reasonable
doubt, it would neither be fair nor
reasonable for the law courts to exercise
jurisdiction under the Act. The proceedings
are quasi-criminal in nature, and therefore,
standard of proof required in these
proceedings is beyond all reasonable
doubt. It would rather be hazardous to
impose sentence for contempt on the
authorities in exercise of the contempt
jurisdiction on mere probabilities. [...]"
(Emphasis supplied)

189. In Murray & Co. v. Ashok
Kr. Newatia & Anr. reported in (2000) 2
SCC 367 this Court held that the purpose
of contempt jurisdiction is to uphold the
majesty and dignity of the courts of law
since the image of such a majesty in the
minds of the people cannot be led to be
distorted, as any indulgence which can
even remotely be termed to affect the
majesty of law would result in the society
losing its confidence and faith in the
judiciary and the law courts forfeiting the
trust and confidence of the people in
general. The relevant observations read as
under: -

"9 [...] The purpose of contempt
jurisdiction is to uphold the majesty and
dignity of the courts of law since the image
of such a majesty in the minds of the people
cannot be led to be distorted. The respect
and authority commanded by courts of law
are the greatest guarantee to an ordinary
citizen and the entire democratic fabric of
the society will crumble down if the respect
for the judiciary is undermined. It is true
that the judiciary will be judged by the
people for what the judiciary does, but in
the event of any indulgence which can even
remotely be termed to affect the majesty of
law, the society is bound to lose confidence
and faith in the judiciary and the law
courts thus, would forfeit the trust and
confidence of the people in general."
(Emphasis supplied)

190. In Pushpaben & Anr. v.
Narandas Badiani & Anr. reported in
(1979) 2 SCC 394, it was held that
contempt of court is a special jurisdiction
to be exercised sparingly and with caution
whenever an act adversely affects the
administration of justice or which tends to
44 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
impede its course or tends to shake public
confidence in the judicial institutions. It
further held that this jurisdiction is to be
exercised not for the protection of the
dignity of an individual judge but to protect
the administration of justice from being
maligned and ensure that the authority of
the courts is neither imperilled nor is the
administration of justice by it interfered
with
in
any
manner.
The
relevant
observations read as under: -

"42. The contempt of court is a
special
jurisdiction
to
be
exercised
sparingly and with caution whenever an act
adversely affects the administration of
justice or which tends to impede its course
or tends to shake public confidence in the
judicial institutions. This jurisdiction may
also be exercised when the act complained
of adversely affects the majesty of law or
dignity of the courts. The purpose of
contempt jurisdiction is to uphold the
majesty and dignity of the courts of law. It
is
an
unusual
type
of
jurisdiction
combining "the jury, the judge and the
hangman" and it is so because the court is
not adjudicating upon any claim between
litigating parties.