The main legal point established in the judgment is the clarification of the maintainability of an appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court in contempt proceedings, emphasizing the limited scope of appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and the criteria for an order to be considered a 'judgment'.

JUDGMENT :

1. This Intra-Court Appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court has been filed against the order dated 16.12.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in Contempt Application (Civil) No. 2027 of 2020 (Raj Bali Singh Versus Shri Nitin Ramesh Gokarn, Additional Chief Secretary / Principal Secretary and Shri Devendra Nigam, Executive Engineer) as also the order dated 10.3.2022 passed in CAPL (Civil) No. 6315 of 2021 (Raj Bali Singh Versus Shri Nitin Ramesh Gokaran and another). By the order dated 16.12.2020, the learned Single Judge has ordered the Contempt Application to be consigned to record being of the view that there is no good ground to proceed further with the contempt application. By the order dated 10.3.2022, the second contempt application being CAPL (Civil) No. 6315 of 2021 has been dismissed as not maintainable and consigned to record.

2. The facts shorn of unnecessary details giving rise to the present proceedings are that the appellant / writ petitioner approached the writ Court inter-alia claiming the following reliefs:

"(a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 1 and 6 to reckon the petitioner's work charge establishment services into regular services for the purposes of gratuity, pension and consequential benefits.

(b) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 6 to grant the pension and consequential benefits to the petitioner."

3. It was contended by the counsel for the appellant / writ petitioner that the controversy involved was squarely covered by the decision of the Apex Court in Prem Singh Versus State of U.P. and others, Civil Appeal No. 6798 of 2019, dated 2.9.2019 and the writ petition be decided in terms of the aforesaid decision.

4. The writ Court by order dated 29.11.2019 disposed of the writ petition requiring the competent authority to look into the grievance of the petitioner and pass appropriate order strictly, in consonance with the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prem Singh, expeditiously within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of the order. When the direction of the writ Court dated 29.11.2019 was not complied with, a contempt application, being CAPL (Civil) No. 2027 of 2020 was filed by the appellant / writ petitioner alleging violation of the direction of the writ Court.

5. Initially, the Contempt Court being prima facie satisfied that the direction of the writ Court had not been complied with issued notice to the contemnors i.e. Shri Nitin Ramesh Gokaran, Addl. Chief Secretary, Government of U.P. and Shri Devendra Nigam, Executive Engineer requiring their presence to answer the contempt proceedings. The contemnors filed an affidavit of compliance annexing a copy of the order dated 27.11.2020 passed by the Executive Engineer, whereby the claim of the appellant / writ petitioner was rejected. The learned Single Judge exercising contempt jurisdiction considered the compliance affidavit as also the order dated 27.11.2020 rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner. The learned Single Judge noted that the order dated 27.11.2020 duly considered the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Prem Singh (supra) as also the directions of the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. through Principal Secretary and others Versus Ram Murat and others; Civil Appeal No. 872 of 2020, decided on 21.10.2020. The learned Single Judge also took note of the Ordinance No. 19 of 2020 (U. P. Qualifying Service for Pension and Validation Ordinance, 2020) which has been made effective with retrospective effect and in relation to Sub Rule 8 of the Rule 3 of the U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961, the ordinance would be effective from April 1, 1961. It also noted the fact that in the case of Prem Singh (supra) the judgment was given by the Apex Court by reading down Rule 23 Sub Rule 8 of the U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961. The learned Single Jud