Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:45009-DB Court No. - 1 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 230 of 2025 Appellant :- Indra Vikram Singh, Director Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad Lucknow Respondent :- Dalel Singh And 10 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Aditya Mohan Counsel for Respondent :- Jitendra Narain Mishra Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J. 1. Heard Shri Sanjay Bhasin, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Aditya Mohan, learned Counsel for the appellant, Shri Jitendra Narain Mishra, learned Counsel for the respondent. 2. This is an appeal against an order dated 03.07.2025 passed by the Contempt Judge in Contempt Application (Civil) No.1193 of 2024. A preliminary objection has been raised by Shri Jitendra Narain Mishra, learned Counsel for the respondent that a special appeal against such an order is not maintainable. On the other hand, Shri Bhasin, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that the appeal is maintainable for the reasons that the Contempt Judge has touched the merits of the matter and therefore, the order is without jurisdiction. The submission is that the Contempt Judge could not have entered into the merits of the dispute. 3. Having gone through the judgment of the writ court dated 27.07.2023, we find that there is a finding recorded therein about juniors to the respondents having been granted the benefit of 5th and 6th Pay Commission and based on that ground considering the violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and relying upon certain decisions of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, the writ petition was allowed quashing the order dated 10.09.2015 by which the said benefit was declined to the respondents herein and a writ of mandamus was issued commanding the respondent No.2 to consider extending the same benefits as have admittedly been extended to the juniors of the petitioner as per the specific averment made in paragraph No.17 of the counter affidavit i.e. a grant of benefit of 5th and 6th Pay Commission. As this judgment was not complied, therefore, contempt proceedings were initiated by the respondents and during the contempt proceedings, an order of compliance was passed. The stand taken by the appellants herein before the Contempt Judge was that the alleged juniors were incorrectly and wrongly given the benefits which have been allowed to the respondents herein also, therefore, show cause notices were issued to the said persons and ultimately, the benefits were withdrawn, therefore, it was not open for the Contempt Judge to have proceeded any further in matter, however, on being pointed out that the said persons whose benefits had been withdrawn, they got a stay order from this Court which is still operating, a fact, which was there before the Contempt Judge and for this reason, the affidavit of compliance has been rejected with the observation that a fresh affidavit of compliance be filed failing which the alleged contemnor shall appear before the Court for the purposes of framing of charges, Learned Senior Counsel accepted the aforesaid factual position. 4. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record it is a settled legal position that a special appeal against an order passed by a Contempt Judge would lie only if the order is without jurisdiction. We have carefully perused the order passed by the Contempt Judge on 03.07.2025. We do not find any consideration by the Contempt Judge of any issue which has not already been decided by the writ court vide its judgment dated 27.07.2023. As regards, the subsequent developments noticed hereinabove pertaining to withdrawal of the benefit to the others, who were junior to the respondents, it is also not denied that they have got a stay order from this Court and therefore, as of now, they are being paid the benefits of the 5th and 6th Pay Commission. In this scenario, we cannot say that the order of the Contempt Judge is without jurisdiction. The appellants are entitled to form an opinion that the order is wrong but there is a distinction between a wrong order and an order without jurisdiction, we, in special appeal can interfere only if the order is without jurisdiction. If according to the appellants, it is a wrong order then the remedy lies elsewhere possibly before Hon'ble the Supreme Court by means of a Special Leave Petition. Only for this reason, we, dismiss this special appeal. (Manish Kumar, J.) (Rajan Roy, J.) Order Date :- 4.8.2025 -Piyush- Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench