DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ. (ORAL)

1. This intra-Court appeal has been instituted seeking exception to an order dated 14.02.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Contempt Case (C) No. 308/2021, whereby the earlier order passed by the learned

Contempt Judge on 18.12.2024 has been recalled and set aside and the contempt petition has been dismissed.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records available before us on this appeal.

3. The appellant had instituted Writ Petition (C) No.2496/2008, which was disposed of by the learned Single Judge by means of the order dated 19.01.2018. The operative portion of the said order as contained in paragraph 10 is extracted herein below:-

“10. Consequentially, a mandamus is issued to respondent- College to give the slot of visually handicapped in the year 1998 in the “100 Point Roster” (Annexure R-1) to petitioner as her entitlement to 3% reservation has to essentially relate back to the first available vacancy, which was infact existing in the year 1997. Since petitioner has been erroneously appointed on part- time basis on post of Hindi Lecturer in the year 1997 whereas she should have been appointed against a regular vacancy of Hindi Lecturer, therefore, the relief granted to petitioner is confined to the prayer made in this petition i.e. the seniority of petitioner has to relate back to the year 1998 and not to the year 2001, as has been already granted by respondent-College. All consequential benefits accruing upon grant of 3% reservation to petitioner w.e.f. the year 1998 shall follow. However, it is clarified that the monetary benefits as a consequence of this decision will relate back to the year 1998 and not to three years prior to filing of this writ petition. Such a clarification is made for the reason that when petitioner’s earlier writ petition was disposed of vide order of 22nd November, 2007, liberty was granted to petitioner to claim seniority etc. and all consequential benefits from the year 1998. Since petitioner had filed the earlier writ petition in the year 2001, therefore, all consequential monetary benefits would relate back to period of three years prior to filing of W.P. (C) 1784/2001.”

4. The Respondent No.1, however, instituted the proceedings of LPA 206/2018, which too was disposed of by means of the order dated 10.01.2020, whereby the directions issued by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 19.01.2018 were modified by observing that though permanent appointment of the appellant on the post of Lecturer in Hindi at Kirori Mal College would notionally relate back to the year 1998 and her pay would accordingly be fixed on notional basis from 1998, however she would be entitled to actual payment of arrears from 16.04.2001. The Division Bench vide the said order dated 10.01.2020 also directed that the appellant would be deemed to have been appointed on a permanent post of Lecturer in Hindi w.e.f. 01.01.1998 and on the said basis her seniority would also be reckoned and her notional pay would be fixed for the purpose of computation of arrears of pay that she may be entitled to from 16.04.2001 onwards. The College was also directed to ensure that the appellant was paid the arrears of pay within eight weeks. The operative portion of the Division Bench order dated 10.01.2020 is embodied in paragraph 13, which reads as under:-

“13. We, therefore, modify the directions issued by the learned Single Judge to the extent that though her permanent appointment would notionally relate back to the year 1998, and her pay would accordingly be fixed on a notional basis from 1998, she would be entitled to actual payment of arrears from 16.04.2001. We also find that the learned Single Judge has not fixed a specific date in the year 1998 from which the Respondent would count her seniority as a permanent Hindi Lecturer. Considering the fact that the Respondent was appointed as a part-time Hindi Lecturer in 1997, we direct that she would be deemed to be appointed