Allahabad High Court
Dr.Himanshu Pathak vs Mithilesh Kumar Pandey And 6 Others on 6 November, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:73144-DB
Court No. - 1
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 270 of 2024
Appellant :- Dr.Himanshu Pathak
Respondent :- Mithilesh Kumar Pandey And 6 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Ravi Singh Sisodiya
Counsel for Respondent :- Yadukul Shiromani Srivastava (Y.S.Lohit),Uttam Kumar Verma
Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J.
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
1. Heard Sri Ravi Singh Sisodiya, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Y.S. Lohit, the learned counsel who has put in appearance on behalf of opposite parties no.1 to 4, Sri Uttam Kumar Verma, the learned counsel who has put in appearance on behalf of opposite parties no.5 and 6 and perused the records.
2. The present intra court appeal under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, has been filed by one of the opposite parties i.e. opposite party no.5, who was a party in Writ-A No.7847 of 2022 instituted by opposite parties no.1 to 4 herein. On exchange of the pleadings between the parties, the matter appears to have been heard finally and decided vide judgment/order on 17.05.2023 by a coordinate Bench of this Court. The directions issued in the final judgment as contained in para nos.26 and 27 read as under:
"(26) Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 11.11.2022 passed by the Director, Administration and Monitoring of the University as are contained in Annexure Nos.3 and 4 to the writ petition are hereby quashed.
(27) The petitioners shall be allowed to continue to serve on their respective posts till they attain the age of 62 years. They shall also be entitled to all consequential benefits which would have accrued to them had the orders dated 11.11.2002 not been passed. "
3. It is informed that the judgment rendered by the coordinate Bench of this court in Writ-A No.7847 of 2022, decided on 17.05.2023 was challenged before Hon'ble the Apex Court by the respective opposite parties, including the present appellant by means of three separate SLPs numbered as SLP under Diary Nos.32010 of 2023, 43527 of 2023 and 51641 of 2023.
4. The SLPs filed before the Hon'ble Apex Court were dismissed in limine. Thus, the judgment passed by coordinate Bench of this court attained finality upon dismissal of the SLPs filed by respective opposite parties in the writ petition. It is after dismissal of the SLPs in limine, that a belated review application has come to be filed before the writ court arising out of judgment/order dated 17.05.2023. Even the delay condonation application has not been allowed as on date.
5. Interestingly, the present appellant on issuance of notice on the delay condonation application filed along with the review application had approached the Hon'ble Apex Court and the said SLP was ultimately withdrawn by the present appellant.
6. In the meantime, contempt proceedings were initiated by opposite parties no.1 to 4 before the Contempt Court and finally charges have come to be framed against the contemnors, for which an opportunity to respond has been granted by the Contempt Court on 25.09.2024 in Contempt Application (Civil) No.3012 of 2023.
7. The appellant has now turned around and instituted the present intra court appeal arising out of an order whereby the contempt proceedings have progressed up to the stage of framing of charges regarding which opportunity to file reply has been granted to the present appellant as well.
8. We fail to understand as to how the present intra court appeal would be maintainable as against the impugned order seeking to frame the charges against the contemnors who have failed to carry out the mandate of law as per the directions issued by this court vide judgment dated 17.05.2023, which has attained finality.
9. It is not the case before us that the Contempt Court has in any manner acted beyond the scope of the directions issued by a coordinate Bench of this Court or has otherwise interpreted the directions so issued beyond the scope of law and the claim as has been allowed by the writ court.
10. The submission put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant that the present appellant does not owe a duty to make payment of the dues as have been allowed by the writ court, in our humble consideration is wholly erroneous, once learned counsel for the University has stated before us that it is the appellant i.e. ICAR i.e. opposite party no.5 in writ petition, which is bound to release the funds for making the payments as are due to opposite parties no.1 to 4 under the judgment and order passed by this Court. Shifting of duty regarding payment at best can be explained before the Contempt Court by filing a reply and such an issue cannot be dealt with in the present intra court appeal, particularly when the judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench of this court has attained finality.
11. We do not find that the contempt court for having proceeded to frame the charges against the present appellant has in any manner exceeded its jurisdiction or otherwise committed any illegality insofar as drawing up of contempt proceedings are concerned. We are not satisfied that an intra court appeal would be maintainable on the strength of case laws as has been cited before us.
12. The special appeal is bereft of any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.
.
[Subhash Vidyarthi, J.] [A.R. Masoodi, J.]
Order Date :- 6.11.2024
Ram.
