The court emphasized that willful disobedience of its orders constitutes contempt, and the principle of 'no work no pay' cannot override established rights under judicial directives.

JUDGMENT :

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 v. State of U.P. and others) 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.

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 t