ITEM NO.59 COURT NO.2 SECTION XI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 2713/2025 [Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 07-01-2025 in CAC No. 3079/2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench]

MAHENDRA DEV Petitioner(s)

VERSUS RADHE SHYAM PANDEY Respondent(s)

FOR ADMISSION and I.R.

IA No. 26552/2025 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.

Date : 03-02-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. VINOD CHANDRAN For Petitioner(s) :

Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, AOR For Respondent(s) :

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

1. The petitioner, who is the Director of Secondary Education of the State of Uttar Pradesh, is before this Court challenging the order which directed his presence; if an affidavit of compliance is not filed or an interim order is not granted in the Special Appeal Signafturei Nolt Veerifided from the judgment, from which arose the Contempt Application.

Digitally signed by DEEPAK SINGH Date: 2025.02.06

17:54:T50 hISTe petitioner-therein who was appointed on ad hoc basis as Reason:

Assistant Teacher (LT Grade) by the Committee of the Management of the school on 29.11.1992 was regularized much later in the year

2018 with retrospective effect from 2016. The petitioner retired on 31.03.2019 and claimed pension; claiming also the ad hoc service he had in the school. In the Writ Application by Annexure P-11, relying on the judgment of a coordinate Bench (Annexure P-10), the claim of the petitioner was allowed, directing computation of the ad hoc period as pensionable service. Annexure P-11 directed the respondent-Sate to consider the grant of benefit of pension in accordance with Annexure P-10 judgment.

2. The respondent-State having not acted on the directions issued, the Writ Petitioner was before the High Court with a Contempt Application. Notice being issued by Annexure P-14, the Writ Petitioner was granted provisional pension, subject to the decision in the Special Leave Petition (Civil) @Diary No.3299/2022; wherein the issue raised, by the State, was reckoning of ad hoc service for the purpose of computing pensionable service.

3. The learned Single Judge by Annexure P-16 took note of the grant of provisional pension; but insisted on regular pension being granted and directed the presence of the petitioner-herein before Court; if the directions were not complied with.

4. The impugned order chastised the petitioner-herein for having sought for deferment of personal appearance on the ground of consent being required from the State Government for complying with the judgment of the learned Single Judge and also noticed the submission that an appeal against the judgment is pending, in which interim order of stay is also prayed for.

5. We fully agree with the High Court that, no consent from the Government is required to comply with the orders of the Writ Court.

However, in the deferment application filed, it was specifically pointed out that an appeal was pending from the judgment from which the Contempt Application arose. As we noticed, the issue is also pending in a Special Leave Petition before this Court which was specifically spoken of in the application submitted for deferment before the High Court.

6. We specifically refer to Modern Food Industries (India) Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Sachidanand Dass & Anr.¹ from which paragraphs 4 and 5 are extracted below:

4. Before the High Court, appellants urged that before any contempt proceedings could be initiated, it was necessary and appropriate for the Division Bench to examine the prayer for stay, or else, the appeal itself might become infructuous. This did not commend itself to the High Court which sought to proceed with the contempt first. We are afraid, the course adopted by the High Court does not commend itself as proper. If, without considering the prayer for stay, obedience to the