JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri S.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Sameer Sharma, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent.

Submissions :

2. Learned counsel for the respondent has raised a preliminary objection of maintainability of the present appeal on the ground that the order impugned is not an order, punishing the appellant for contempt, therefore, the appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is not maintainable in view of law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Chunilal Nanda (2006) 5 SCC 399 (Paragraph 11). He also relied upon the two Division Bench judgement of this Court in S.M.A. Abdi and another vs. Private Secretary Brotherhood and another, 2009 (4) UPLBEC 3106 and Tarun Kumar Agrawal vs. The Executive Engineer U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Meerut 2013 (101 ALR 46. He also supports the impugned order on merit.

3. Sri S.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appeal is maintainable and he relied upon a Division Bench judgement of this Court in Subhawati Devi vs. R.K. Singh and others (Special Appeal No. 553 of 2003 decided on 19.03.2004) and in view of law laid down in Modi Telefibres Ltd. and Ors. vs. Sujit Kumar Choudhary and Ors. (2005) 7 SCC 40 (Paragraph 4 and 5). He submits that the impugned order records of finding. He submits that once an order in compliance to the order of the writ court has been passed it was not open for the competent court to direct the appellant to revisit the order. Hence, on merit the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

4. Brief facts of the present case are that in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.30057 of 2016 (Santosh Kumar Srivastava vs. State of U.P. and others) was filed by the respondent herein which was allowed by the writ court by judgement dated 04.12.2017, directing as under :-

“In view of the above, we direct the respondents to consider the petitioner for grant of promotion on the post of Assistant Regional Manager (Technical) w.e.f. 09.06.2016 the date on which the persons junior to him have been promoted on the said post ignoring the entry dated 30.03.2012 in accordance with law within a period of three months and to accord all monitory benefits admissible as such to the petitioner.”

5. Thereafter, Managing Director of the U.P. Transport Corporation passed an order dated 06.11.2018 concluding as under :-

^^ek0 mPp U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; fnukad 04-12-2017 ds vuqikyu esa buds Ádj.k ij p;u lfefr dh gksus okyh vkxkeh cSBd esa fopkj fd;k tkuk Fkk] fdUrq Hkz"Vkpkj fujks/kd ny }kjk fnukad 01-12-2017 dks iqfyl vfHkj{kk esa Hkz"Vkpkj ds vkjksi esa fu#) fd;s tkus laca/kh xEHkhj vkjksiksa ds laca/k esa vuq'kklfud dk;Zokgh orZeku esa yfEcr gSA

foxr esa ÁksUufr gsrq foHkkxh; p;u lfefr dh cSBd fnukad 13-4-2018 esa budk Ádj.k ÁksUufr ij fopkj gsrq ÁLrqr fd;k x;k Fkk ftlesa buds fo#) fnukad 04-08-2014 ds iwoZ dh vuq'kklfud dk;Zokfg;ksa ds Ádj.kksa esa fn;s x;s n.M dks p;u lfefr }kjk fopkj esa ugha fy;k x;kA fdUrq buds fo#) vuq'kklfud dk;Zokgh xfr'khy gksus ds n`f"Vxr p;u lfefr }kjk lE;d~ fopkjksijkUr budh ÁksUufr dh laLrqfr cUn fyQkQs esa j[ks tkus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;kA vkxkeh foHkkxh; p;u lfefr dh cSBd esa buds }kjk ikfjr Áfrdwy Áfo"V fnukad 30-03-2012 dks Washed-off ekudj vU; fooj.kksa lfgr iqu% ÁksUufr ds lac/k esa fopkj gsrq j[kk tk;sxk] ftl ij p;u lfefr }kjk fu;ekuqlkj fu.kZ; fy;k tk;sxkA

rn~uqlkj ek0 mPp U;k;ky;] bykgkckn ds fu.kZ; fnukad 04-12-2017 ds vuqikyu esa ;kph Jh larks"k dqekj JhokLro] lhfu;j QksjeSu xzsM&1 }kjk ÁLrqr iR;kosnu fnukad 07-02-2018 ,oa 08-10-2018 dk vfUre #i ls fuLrkj.k fd;k tkrk gSA

6. Thereafter, the respondent herein filed the aforesaid Contempt Application (Civil) No.5916 of 2018 in which the impugned order dated 14.09.2022 has been passed, as under :

“On 07.09.2022, time was granted to the counsel representing the opposite party to go through the matter. Today, when the case was taken up, further time was sought by the coun