# Vandhana Singh & Ors v. Javed Usmani, Chief Secretary & Ors

- **Citation:** (2013) 2 ILRA 1018
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2013-07-09
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Contempt Application No.4930 of 2012
- **Bench:** Krishna Murari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vandhana-singh-ors-v-javed-usmani-chief-secretary-ors-42536
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Sri R.B. Pradhan(Addl. C.S.C.)

Contempt of Court, 1971-Section12- willful
disobedience-petitioner working as project
officer-after
abolition
of
Scheme-on
humanitarian ground-give appointment on
post of L.T. Grade Teacher-writ petition
decided
by
common
judgment
dated
05.04.2002-SLP against also dismissed-by
further order government propose to give
appointment on post of L.T. grade giving
pay
protection-objection
that
as
per
direction of Court pay protection as well
status not given-held-if in compliance of
judgment any order passed-can not be
willful disobedience-validity of such order
can be adjudged by writ court and not
under
contempt
jurisdiction-application
rejected.

Held: Para-9
In the present case, the direction issued by
the Division Bench of this Court, affirmed by
the Hon'ble Apex Court was to reconsider
the feasibility of protection of pay and
status of the applicants. On an analysis of
the entire facts and circumstances as well
as decision taken by the State Government
in compliance of the order, this Court finds
that the order passed by the Division Bench
has been complied in letter and spirit and it
cannot be said to be a merely eyewash in
order to wriggle out of the contempt
proceeding. In so far as the legality and
merits of the order on various grounds
urged on behalf of the applicants, it is not
for this Court to enter into the same.
Needless to say that in such a situation the
remedy
of
the
applicants
lies
by
undertaking appropriate proceeding before
appropriate forum.

## Text

1018 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL- SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.07.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE KRISHNA MURARI, J.

Civil Misc. Contempt Application No.4930
of 2012

Vandhana Singh & Ors.
 ...Petitioner
Versus
Javed Usmani, Chief Secretary & Ors.

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Subedar Mishra, Sri S.K. Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri R.B. Pradhan(Addl. C.S.C.)

Contempt of Court, 1971-Section12- willful
disobedience-petitioner working as project
officer-after
abolition
of
Scheme-on
humanitarian ground-give appointment on
post of L.T. Grade Teacher-writ petition
decided
by
common
judgment
dated
05.04.2002-SLP against also dismissed-by
further order government propose to give
appointment on post of L.T. grade giving
pay
protection-objection
that
as
per
direction of Court pay protection as well
status not given-held-if in compliance of
judgment any order passed-can not be
willful disobedience-validity of such order
can be adjudged by writ court and not
under
contempt
jurisdiction-application
rejected.

Held: Para-9
In the present case, the direction issued by
the Division Bench of this Court, affirmed by
the Hon'ble Apex Court was to reconsider
the feasibility of protection of pay and
status of the applicants. On an analysis of
the entire facts and circumstances as well
as decision taken by the State Government
in compliance of the order, this Court finds
that the order passed by the Division Bench
has been complied in letter and spirit and it
cannot be said to be a merely eyewash in
order to wriggle out of the contempt
proceeding. In so far as the legality and
merits of the order on various grounds
urged on behalf of the applicants, it is not
for this Court to enter into the same.
Needless to say that in such a situation the
remedy
of
the
applicants
lies
by
undertaking appropriate proceeding before
appropriate forum.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
applicants and learned Standing Counsel for
the opposite parties.

2. This application under Section 12
of the Contempt of Courts Act has been
filed alleging will disobedience of the
judgment and order dated 5.4.2002 passed
on writ petition no. 18619 of 2001 as well
as leading writ petition no. 12879 of 2001
along with other connected writ petitions.

3. Undisputed facts are that a nonformal educational scheme was introduced
by the Central Government in the year 197980 for imparting education to children in the
age group 6 to 14 who either did not attend
any school or left the studies before
completing primary education. The scheme
was implemented in the State of U.P. under
the Director of Education (Basic), U.P. In
order to successful run the scheme, certain
posts including the post of Supervisor were
created at various levels. Later on in the year
1987-88, the scheme was modified and it
was given shape of a project and in order to
meet the requirements of the project, which
came to be known Non-formal Education
Project, various posts including the post of
Project
Officer
was
created
by
the
Government Order dated 30.3.1988. Since
the project itself was temporary in nature, the
Government Order visualized that all posts
should be temporary and liable to be
2 All] Vandhana Singh & Ors. Vs. Javed Usmani, Chief Secretary & Ors.
1019
abolished at any time without any prior
information. The applicants claimed that they
were selected and appointed on adhoc basis
in 1989 under the pay scale 6500-10500.
Subsequently, the scheme was not extended
by the State Government and the applicants
and various other similarly situated persons
filed various writ petitions before this Court
which were connected and decided vide
judgment and order dated 5.4.2002 passed on
leading writ petition no. 12879 of 2001. The
writ petitions were allowed in part by passing
the following order :

"Accordingly, the petitions succeed
and are allowed in part. The impugned
order 23.3.2001 is quashed. The matter is
remitted to the State Government to
reconsider the feasibility of protection of
pay and status of the petitioners after
taking into reckoning all the relevant
factors stated in this judgement and if
necessary to modify its order dated
24.3.2001 accordingly."

4. State Government went up in
appeal before the Hon'ble Apex Court,
which was registered as civil appeal no.
8658 of 2002. The appeal was dismissed
by the Hon'ble Apex Court by making
following observations :

"Having heard learned counsel for
the parties and perused the impugned
judgment, we are of the opinion that the
direction by the High Court to the
Government to consider the question of
protection of pay and status of the writ
petitioners in the light of the observations
made in the impugned judgment, does not
warrant
our
interference
with
the
impugned judgment. Accordingly, the
appeal is dismissed.

However, having regard to the fact
that the issue is handing fire for over 10
years, we would request the authorities
concerned to take a final decision in the
matter, as expeditiously as practicable and
in any case, not later than 6 months from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
"

5. After the dismissal of the appeal
by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the applicants
made representation to the opposite
parties on 22.12.2011 and again sent a
reminder on 16.7.2012. However, when
no decision was taken they approached
the Court by filing the instant contempt
application under Section 12 of the Act.
Vide order dated 29.10.2012 the opposite
parties were put to notice giving an
opportunity to comply with the order
within a month, failing which they were
required to appear personally before the
Court.

6. Opposite party no. 3 Director of
Education (Basic) filed an affidavit on
15.1.2013. In paragraph 7 of the affidavit, it
has been stated that in compliance of the
order a decision was taken at the level of the
State
Government
on
27.9.2012
in
consultation with the Finance Department,
copy whereof has been annexed as annexure
no. 1 to the affidavit. It has also been stated
in paragraph 8 that representation made by
the applicants was also disposed of by a
separate order dated 4.12.2012 in the light of
the decision already taken on 27.9.2012,
copy of the said order has been annexed as
annexure no. 2 to the affidavit. The decision
taken on the representation by the opposite
parties in the light of the judgment of this
Court and affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex
Court is as under :
1020 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013

" bl lEca/k esa 'kklu }kjk ekuuh; mPpre
U;k;ky; esa ;ksftr dh x;h fo'ks"k vuqKk ;kpfdk
la[;k 8658@2002 fnukad 01 fnlEcj] 20011 esa
fn, x;s vkns'kksa ds dze esa iquZfopkj djrs gq, foRr
foHkkx }kjk dh x;h fVIi.kh ds izdk'k esa fuEuor
fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gS%&

ifj;kstuk vf/kdkjh ,oa lgk;d ifj;kstuk
vf/kdkjh ds inks ij in/kkjd dze'k% osru :i;k
6500&10500 ,oa 5000 ls 8000 esa rSukr FksA NBs
osru vk;ksx ds lanHkZ esabu osruekuksa ds lekU;
iqujh{k.k dze'k% osru cSaM &2 :0 9300 &34800 ,oa
xzsM osru :0 4600 ,oa osru cSaM &2 :0 9300
&34800 ,oa xszM osru :0 4200 gksrk gSA bu
in/kkjdks dks dze'k%osru cSM&2 9300&34800 ,oa
xszM osru :i;k 4600 ,oa osru cSM &2 :i;k
9300& 34800 xszM osru :i;k 4200 ds inks ij
rSukrh fn, tkus ls muds osru ,oa ,oa Lrj dk
laj{k.k (protection of pay and status) gks
tkrk gSA "

7. A rejoinder affidavit has been filed
stating that the decision taken by the State
Government cannot be termed as compliance
of the order of this Court as well as Hon'ble
Apex Court in letter and spirit and the State
Government has wrongly processed the
matter and tried to create confusion. Certain
judicial pronouncements have been referred
in the rejoinder affidavit for the proposition
of violation of the natural justice, concept of
restitution and also the proposition that a
conduct of a party assumes significance in
moulding the reliefs and to do complete
justice between the parties, all relevant aspect
of the matter are to be considered. As a
matter of fact, the averments in the rejoinder
affidavit and thrust of the argument of the
learned counsel for the applicants is to
challenge the merits of decision taken by the
State Government.

8. It is well settled that the legality and
the merits of the order passed by an authority
in compliance of the directions issued by the
Court is not normally to be tested in
contempt jurisdiction. It is only in the case
where on the face of it, the compliance
appears to be an eyewash and order passed
by the court does not appear to be carried out
in letter and spirit, the contempt court may
test the order passed by the authority in order
to satisfy itself whether there is actual
compliance or it is merely an eyewash in
order to avoid contempt proceeding.

9. In the present case, the direction
issued by the Division Bench of this Court,
affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court was to
reconsider the feasibility of protection of pay
and status of the applicants. On an analysis
of the entire facts and circumstances as well
as decision taken by the State Government in
compliance of the order, this Court finds that
the order passed by the Division Bench has
been complied in letter and spirit and it
cannot be said to be a merely eyewash in
order to wriggle out of the contempt
proceeding. In so far as the legality and
merits of the order on various grounds urged
on behalf of the applicants, it is not for this
Court to enter into the same. Needless to say
that in such a situation the remedy of the
applicants lies by undertaking appropriate
proceeding before appropriate forum.

10. Since the order passed by the
Division Bench of this Court and affirmed
by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the opinion
of the Court, stands complied with in
letter and spirit, the contempt proceedings
are not liable to be proceeded any further.
Contempt
notice
accordingly
stand
discharged.

11. Let the contempt petition be
consigned to record.
---------

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 09.05.2013