HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 14682 of 2025 Chief Justice's Court HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J. 1. This petition is directed against order dated 29.04.2025, passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad ('Tribunal') in Civil Misc. Execution Application No. 1188 of 2019 in Original Application ('OA') No. 582 of 2009. 2. The Execution Application under Section 27 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 ('Act') was filed for execution of order dated 12.10.2012 passed in OA No. 582 of 2009, which was modified by this Court in Writ - A No. 40638 of 2013. 3. The matter has got a chequered history. The petitioners were appointed as Extra Departmental Agents (Stamp Vendors) in the year 1991 and 1995. The OA No. 149 of 2006 was filed which was disposed of on 28.01.2009 with the direction to the respondents to pass a reasoned and speaking order. Pursuant to the order of the Tribunal, an order dated 14.05.2009 was passed rejecting the claim of the petitioners, which led to filing of OA No. 582 of 2009. The OA was decided by order dated 12.10.2012, whereby the order impugned dated 14.05.2009 was quashed and set aside and certain directions were given to prepare the seniority list of the petitioners and similarly situated substitutes and it was directed that in case, the respondents decide to regularize such persons, they shall follow the seniority list for the purpose of regularization. Further directions were given that on preparation of such seniority list, the petitioners be informed of their seniority position and the likelihood of Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Kamla Kant Mishra, Varun Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : S.P. Singh (A.S.G.I.), Ashish Kumar Dinesh Kumar Mishra and another .....Petitioner(s) Union of India and 4 others .....Respondent(s) their being absorbed on regular basis. The said order was challenged by filing Writ - A No. 40638 of 2013, which came to be disposed of on 30.07.2013 with the following observations : "We, therefore, find no infirmity in the said order of the Tribunal. However, the last line of paragraph 9, where the Tribunal has observed that on preparation of such 'seniority list', the respondents shall be informed of their seniority list and the likelihood of their being absorbed on regular basis, is uncalled for. Only when the petitioners decide to regularize the services of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 such a question may arise. Therefore, that part of the order is set aside. With the above modification in the impugned order, the writ petition is disposed of. However, the 'seniority list' of the substitutes which is directed to be prepared in the impugned order, shall be circulated amongst the substitutes." 4. When the order was purportedly not complied with, contempt petition was filed, wherein CCP No. 68 of 2013 came to be decided with the following observations : "10. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties as well as the materials on record. It is clear that the respondents have taken the consistent stand from the beginning of this Contempt case that the order dated 12.10.2012 of this Tribunal cannot be implemented as there is no provisions under the rules to prepare the seniority list of the substitute. One part of the order has already been set aside by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court vide order dated 30.07.2013 in Writ Petition No. 40638 of 2013 as discussed in para 2 of this order. Hence, we are of the view that although the order dated 12.10.2012 as modified by Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 30.07.2013 has not been implemented, it is not deliberate or wilful violation of the order of this Tribunal. Therefore, following the legal principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sudhir Vasudeva (supra) as discussed in para 7 above the respondents cannot be held to be liable under the Contempt of Court Act, 1971. Therefore, the present contempt petition is dismissed. Notices issued to the respondents are discharged." WRIA No. 14682 of 2025 2 5. The petitioners filed Writ - A No. 1651 of 2018, which came to be dismissed on 14.08.2018, wherein counsel for the petitioner himself stated that remedy by way of execution under Section 27 of the Act was available based on which the petition was dismissed. Whereafter the present execution proceedings were filed, which remained pending for long and ultimately, came to be dismissed by the order impugned, wherein the Tribunal noticed that office memorandum dated 03.02.2015 was appended as Annexure No. CA-3, whereby seniority list of substitute of Gramin Dak Sevak in respect of Allahabad Division was produced and consequently, found that the execution application was liable to be dismissed. 6. Counsel for the petitioner made submissions that the Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the execution application inasmuch as once the Tribunal, in its order dated 12.10.2012, had quashed and set aside order dated 14.05.2009, by which the engagement of the petitioners as substitutes was put to an end, as a natural consequence, the respondents were required to re-engage the petitioners and as they have not been re- engaged, the execution application could not have been dismissed. Further submissions were made that the plea raised by the respondents regarding there being no provision for engaging the substitutes is ex-facie incorrect as after passing of the order, large number of substitutes were engaged and therefore, the plea raised in this regard deserves to be discarded and the respondents be directed to implement the order passed in OA in its letter and spirit. 7. Counsel for the respondents, with reference to the counter affidavit, made submissions that the order impugned in the OA, which was passed on the representation made by the petitioners, clearly indicated dispensing with the engagement of the petitioners and requiring the regularly appointed Gramin Dak Sevak (Stamp Vendors) to join at the places where the petitioners were working. 8. Further, in the order impugned before the Tribunal, there was no discussion worth the name qua the fact of dispensing with the engagement of the petitioners and the discussion only centered around issuance of seniority list and directions, in this regard only, were issued and there was WRIA No. 14682 of 2025 3 no direction for re-engagement. The directions issued by the Tribunal as modified by the High Court were duly implemented and therefore, the contempt petition and the execution application have rightly been dismissed. 9. We have considered the submissions made and have perused the material available on record. 10. It is well settled that the executing court cannot go beyond the decree, which has been passed. In the present case, in the OA, following direction was passed: "9. In view of the above, the OA is allowed. Impugned order dated 14th May 2009 is quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to prepare the seniority lists of the applicants and similarly situated substitutes and in case they decide to regularize such persons, they shall follow the seniority list for the purpose of regularization. On preparation of such seniority lists, the applicants be informed of their seniority position and the likelihood of their being absorbed on regular basis. 10. Under the circumstances that shall be no orders as to costs." which has been modified by this Court as quoted hereinbefore. 11. A perusal of the above would reveal that the direction only pertains to the issuance of seniority list and nothing more. Even in the judgment of the Tribunal, there has been no discussion examining the validity of dispensing with the engagement of the petitioners. 12. As such, during course of the contempt proceedings, though the Tribunal, at one stage, directed the respondents to re-engage the petitioners, when ultimately the engagement did not take place, the contempt petition was dismissed though it was observed that the order has not been implemented, which observations were ipse dixit as there was no elaboration qua the said observations. In the execution application, the Tribunal, taking into consideration that the seniority list has been appended along with the counter affidavit, has rejected the same. 13. In that view of the matter, we do not find that the Tribunal committed WRIA No. 14682 of 2025 4 any error in dismissing the execution application as the claim made seeking re-engagement pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal did not arise at all. 14. So far as the submissions made regarding the respondents re- engaging/appointing large number of persons after disengaging the petitioners is concerned, the said action, even if factually correct, cannot be used for seeking execution of the order in the manner sought by the petitioners. The said action, if at all, would give independent cause to the petitioners as the same has nothing to do with the present proceedings. 15. Consequently, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order impugned. 16. The petition has no substance, the same is, therefore, dismissed. March 23, 2026 Mukesh Pal WRIA No. 14682 of 2025 5 (Kshitij Shailendra,J.) (Arun Bhansali,CJ.) Digitally signed by :- MUKESH PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad