Mohammad Yasin @ Mohammad Yasin Hasmi vs Deepak Kumar, Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 10263 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Mohammad Yasin @ Mohammad Yasin Hasmi vs Deepak Kumar, Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. ... on 8 September, 2025

Author: Rajesh Singh Chauhan

Bench: Rajesh Singh Chauhan

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:53849
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
LUCKNOW  
 
CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 3312 of 2023            
 
   Mohammad Yasin @ Mohammad Yasin Hasmi    
 
  .....Applicant(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   Deepak Kumar, Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Basic Education, Govt.Of U.P.,Civil Sectt. Lko.And Others    
 
  .....Opposite Party(s)        
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Applicant(s)   
 
:   
 
Lalendra Pratap Singh   
 
  
 
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)   
 
:   
 
Krishna Madhav Shukla, Shailendra Singh Rajawat   
 
      
 
 Court No. - 9
 
        
 
 HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.       

(C.M. Application (IA) No.01 of 2024)

1.Heard Sri Lalendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shailendra Singh Rajawat, learned counsel for the Contemnor / opposite party.

2. At the very outset, Sri Rajawat has submitted that the concerning authority has complied with the judgment and order dated 12.04.2023 passed in Writ-A No.4869 of 2022; Mohammad Yasin Hashmi vs. State of U.P. & others, in its letter and spirit as the compliance affidavit has already been filed.

3.Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and contents of the compliance affidavit, this Court vide order dated 11.12.2023 dismissed the contempt petition. The order dated 12.12.2023 reads as under:-

"1. Heard.

2. This Court has passed order dated 2.11.2023 which reads as under :

"1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. Sri Mohit Jauhari, learned Standing Counsel has appeared for opposite party No.2. Sri Shailendra Singh Rajawat, learned counsel has filed application for granting time along with affidavit of Ms. Deepika Chaurvedi, the District Basic Education Officer, Sultanpur and Sri Krishna Madhav Shukla, learned counsel has filed Vakaltnama on behalf of opposite party No.4, the same are taken on record.

3. All the aforesaid learned counsels for the opposite parties have stated that they have received instructions from their parties, therefore, they may be given some reasonable time to file their affidavit of compliance.

4. Let the affidavits of compliance be filed within a period of four weeks.

5. List this case on 11.12.2023.

6. On or before 11.12.2023, the affidavit of compliance be filed by the opposite party Nos.2, 3 & 4 making compliance of order of the Writ Court in its letter and spirit, failing which, the opposite party Nos.2, 3 & 4, namely, Ram Sagarpati Tripathi, Additional Director of Education (Basic), Ayodhya Mandal, Ayodhya, Ms. Deepika Chaturvedi, District Basic Education Officer, Sultanpur and Sri Shivdwar Mishra, Manager, Committee of Management, Sarvodaya Laghu Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Mahmoodpur, Sarangpur, Post Office-Bejhuri, District-Sultanpur shall appear in person before the Court on the next date.

7. When the case is next listed, names of S/Sri Shailendra Singh Rajawat and Krishna Madhav Shukla, Advocates be printed in the cause list as counsel for the opposite parties."

3. In compliance of the aforesaid order Sri Shailendra Singh Rajawat has filed affidavit of compliance, same is taken on record.

4. Ms. Deepika Chaturvedi, District Basic Education Officer, Sultanpur and Sri Shivdwar Mishra, Manager, Committee of Management, Sarvodaya Laghu Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Sultanpur are present in person.

5. In the aforesaid affidavit order dated 7.12.2023 has been enclosed as Annexure no. 1, passed by the same authority whereby in terms of order of the writ court the dues have been directed to be paid to the petitioner subject to the final outcome of the special appeal, if any inasmuch as per Sri Rajawat it has been decided that the order of the writ court may be assailed before the appellate court by filing special appeal. Sri Rajawat has also informed that for getting actual benefits the petitioner is also required to fulfilling some conditions, therefore, the petitioner may also fulfill those conditions inasmuch as unless those conditions are fulfilled the actual benefit may not be given to the petitioner. To that learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioners have completed all the required formalities at the earliest.

6. Be that as it may, when the order of the writ court has been complied with, nothing remains to be adjudicated by this Court in this contempt petition.

7. Accordingly, the contempt petition is dismissed.

8. Notices discharged.

9. However, it is observed that if the petitioner completes the required formalities then after completion of aforesaid required formalities the benefit of the order of the writ court dated 7.12.2023(supra) would be provided to the petitioner with expedition preferably within a period of six weeks failing which the liberty is given to the learned counsel for the petitioner to file appropriate application seeking revival of the contempt petition and if the contempt petition is revived the appropriate order may be passed under the Contempt of Courts Act."

4. After the aforesaid order having been passed,the petitioner has filed an application for recall/ revival of the contempt petition on 04.03.2024 saying that the order of the writ court has not been complied with in its letter and spirit. On such application, the affidavits have been exchanged.

5. Sri Rajawat has filed an application for dismissal of the contempt petition along with compliance affidavit of opposite party No.3 on 23.04.2025 indicating therein that the order of the writ court has been complied with in its letter and spirit showing the copy of order dated 07.12.2023 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Sultanpur.

6. On that application, Sri Lalendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has filed rejoinder affidavit on 14.05.2025. In paras-7, 8 & 9 of the rejoinder affidavit, the petitioner has indicated the fact as to how the order of the writ court has not been complied with in its letter and spirit. For convenience, paras-7, 8 & 9 read as under.

"7. That in compliance of the order dated 13.08.2013 the petitioner has been allowed to join and salary was paid to him since 23.09.2013 incompletely, treating as newly appointed class IIIrd employee without counting earlier services rendered by the petitioner since the date of his initial appointment. However, in this regard the petitioner has prepared his arrears of salary since 23.09.2013 upto November, 2016 (when petitioner was retired) to which the petitioner is legally entitled, such amount is of Rs.9,59,531/- (Annexure No.RA-2).

8. That in this context, it is further relevant to mention here that the petitioner has prepared his amount of gratuity, commutation of pension as well as arrears of salary since 23.09.2013 upto 30.11.2016. However, the entire amounts collectively has been shown as of Rs.24,76,246/- (Annexure No.RA-3).

9. That at the time of retirement of the petitioner, the Manager of the Committee of Management sent the pension papers of the petitioner addressing to the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, District-Sultanpur wherein last pay of the petitioner has been assigned as Rs.52,000/-. However, the pension of the petitioner after deduction of commutation amount has also been assigned therein as of Rs.26,000/- as well as Rs.20,800/- which is justified by the service book of the petitioner. (Annexure No.RA-4)."

7.In para-8 of the rejoinder affidavit, the petitioner has prepared a chart, which has been annexed as Annexure No.RA-3. As per the aforesaid chart, the petitioner was to pay a sum of Rs.24,76,246/- including the interest at the rate of 7% on the arrears.

8. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the aforesaid amount was to be paid to the petitioner. For convenience, the chart prepared by the petitioner (Annexure No.RA-3) is being reproduced here-in-below:-

??????-??????? ??? ???????? ???????? ???????? ????????, ?????????

????-??? ????? ?????-???? ??????? ????? ??????? ??? ??????-3312/2023

??

???? ???? ?? ?????? ??? ????

??? ??????

??????? ??????

?????

???????

????

23.09.2013?? 30.11.2016 ??

???? ???? ?????????????

1660996

701465

959531

??????????

52000

875160

523413

351747

????? ???????

511264

264338

246926

??? ??? ??????-

15,58,204

???? ???????? ?? ???? 30.11.2016 ?? ?????? ???????? ??? ???? 01.12.2016 ?? ?????? 2025?? ??? 101 ??? ?? 7% ?? ?? ?? ??? ?? 1558204 ?? ??? ??? ????? ?? ?????-

9,18,042

???? ?? ??? ??? ??????

24,76,246

9. On the last date, Sri Rajawat had informed that the entire amount has already been paid to the petitioner and today he has produced the photocopy of the Cumulative Pension Payment Statement dated 21.05.2025, which is valid upto 21.05.2026 along with the Treasury Challan letter dated 03.04.2025. The same is taken on record. The photocopy of the aforesaid two letters have been provided to the learned counsel for the petitioner. As per the aforesaid statement, a sum of Rs.27,65,118/- has been credited in the account of the petitioner.

10. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, if as per the petitioner himself, he was entitled for payment to the tune of Rs.24,76,246/- (as per Annexure No.RA-3) and a sum of Rs.27,65,118/- has been credited in his account, which may include the other benefits for which the petitioner was entitled, then it is clear that the order of the contempt court dated 12.04.2023 has been complied with in its letter and spirit.

11. Accordingly, the application for recall/ revival is rejected.

12. It is always open for the petitioner to approach the Competent Authority/ Court of Law, if he has got any other grievance.

13. Consigned to the records.

(Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.)

September 8, 2025

Suresh/