HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 96 of 2025 Along with : Special Appeal No. 98 of 2025: Mohd. Rais Khan Versus UP State Road Transport Corporation through its Managing Director and 2 others Counsel for Appellant(s) : Gulrez Khan Counsel for Respondent(s) : Awadhesh Kumar Saxena in S.A. No. 98/2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Chief Justice's Court HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J. 1. These two appeals arise out of Contempt Application (Civil) No. 4209 of 2007, decided on 19.09.2024 and Writ-A No. 339 of 2025, decided on 16.01.2025 respectively. 2. During pendency of the present appeals, the appellant died and a substitution application has been filed in both the appeals by his son Mohd. Javed Khan, stating that the appellant has no other legal heir and therefore, he may be substituted as legal representative of the sole appellant in both the appeals. 3. For the reasons indicated in the applications, the same are allowed. The applicant is permitted to be substituted as legal representative of the sole appellant in both the appeals. 4. Special Appeal (Defective) No. 96 of 2025 is barred by 121 days. An application seeking condonation of delay has been filed inter alia with the indications that as in the impugned order, learned Single Judge had Versus Mohd. Rais Khan .....Appellant(s) Satya Narain General Manager Roadways and another .....Respondent(s) indicated that the appellant may exercise any other remedy available to him in law, he filed Writ-A No. 339 of 2025, which came to be dismissed on 16.01.2025 based on the order passed in Contempt Application (Civil) No. 4209 of 2007 and as such, under legal advice, now the present appeal against the order impugned has been filed. 5. At the outset, counsel for the appellant was asked as to how the appeal against the order impugned under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 is maintainable. Submissions were made that learned Single Judge, while deciding the application alleging contempt, has touched upon the merits of the controversy and therefore, the special appeal would be maintainable, as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. and others Vs. Chunilal Nanda and others : (2006) 5 SCC 399. 6. For appreciating the contention raised by counsel for the appellant, it would be necessary to notice the circumstances under which the two appeals arise. 7. The appellant was working as Senior Clerk in the Central Workshop of the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation ('the Corporation') and retired as such on 31.01.1999. The amount of gratuity was not paid to the appellant for which Writ Petition No. 55594 of 2000 was filed, the same was disposed of with a direction to decide the claim within two months and to pay the outstandings. 8. For non-compliance of the said order, Contempt Petition No. 805 of 2001 was filed, whereupon the gratuity was paid, however, the claim of interest on the delayed payment was rejected by the respondent Corporation. The contempt petition was dismissed holding that there was no direction to pay interest. 9. Appellant filed Writ Petition No. 69724 of 2006 claiming interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the delayed payment of gratuity. The writ petition was allowed by order dated 04.04.2007. The operative portion of the order reads as under: "For the reason above, this petition succeeds and is allowed and the respondents are directed to pay 12% simple interest to the petitioner on the delayed payment of gratuity from a date of one month after his retirement till the amounts were actually paid. Interest would be payable SPLAD No. 96 of 2025 2 on each of the three installments of gratuity paid. The aforesaid amounts should be paid to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of submission of a certified copy of this order failing which the petitioner would be entitled for compound interest on the same rate and with the same condition. No order as to cost." 10. The order passed by learned Single Judge was questioned by the respondent Corporation in Special Appeal No. 972 of 2007, which came to be decided by order dated 23.04.2010. The operative portion of the order reads as under: "That being the position, the award of interest @ 12% on the amount of gratuity can not be said to be illegal. The order passed by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any legal infirmity. The amount of interest, if not paid, shall be paid within one month from the date on which a certified copy of this order is present before the authority concerned." 11. Alleging non-compliance of the order passed, the present Contempt Application (Civil) No. 4209 of 2007 was filed, wherein the respondent filed a counter affidavit disputing the allegations made in the application. It was stated that the certified copy of the order passed in special appeal was received on 21.05.2010 and the applicant-appellant was sent letters on 28.09.2010, 13.10.2010, 09.11.2010, 27.11.2010 and 23.02.2011, informing him that a cheque for the interest amount had been prepared and the appellant was required to visit the office and receive the same. However, the appellant did not respond to the said letters, based on which it was indicated that there was no wilful disobedience of the order passed. 12. Before the learned Single Judge, submissions were made on behalf of the appellant that as the amount being offered was only simple interest and not the compound interest to which the appellant was entitled, the same was not received. 13. The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the Division Bench, while passing the order, had indicated that the amount of interest not paid shall be paid within one month, which overrides the order passed by the learned Single Judge qua the direction to pay compound interest and consequently, came to the conclusion that there was no wilful disobedience of the orders passed by the Court and dismissed the contempt application and it was observed that the appellant may exercise any other remedy available to him in law. SPLAD No. 96 of 2025 3 14. SPLAD No. 96 of 2025 3 14. Armed with the observation that the appellant may exercise any other remedy available to him in law, Writ-A No. 339 of 2025 was filed seeking payment of entire amount of interest on the delayed payment of gratuity and the penal interest as per the directions of learned Single Judge. 15. When the writ petition came up before the learned Single Judge, the learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the petition was an attempt to execute the order passed by learned Single Judge and the writ Court is not an executing Court. Thereafter, referring to the observations made by the Coordinate Bench while deciding the contempt petition, the writ petition was dismissed, which has given rise to Special Appeal No. 98 of 2025. 16. From the facts which have been noticed above, it is apparent that though the learned Single Judge while deciding the writ petition, directed payment of interest within a period of six weeks from the date of submission of the certified copy of the order and, in default, ordered that the appellant would be entitled for compound interest on the same rate and with the same condition, in the appeal arising from the said order, as would be noticed from the direction quoted herein before, the Division Bench, while upholding the direction for payment of interest at the rate of 12%, specifically observed and directed that the amount of interest, if not paid, shall be paid within one month from the date on which a certified copy of the order is presented before the authority concerned. 17. The direction of the learned Single Judge qua payment of interest also contained a default clause and provided for payment of compound interest in case of failure to pay the interest within a period of six weeks. However, in the appeal, though the direction to pay interest was not interfered with, a further time of one month from the date of presentation of certified copy was granted for making the payment. 18. The plea sought to be raised by the appellant that irrespective of passing of the order by the Division Bench granting one month's time for payment of interest from the date of presentation of certified copy, the direction of the learned Single Judge for payment of compound interest did not get diluted, cannot be appreciated/countenanced, inasmuch as, while considering a plea pertaining to the very justification for awarding SPLAD No. 96 of 2025 4 interest, it was always open for the appellate Court to extend the period within which the order was to be complied with and it would always be the appellate order which, in any manner varies the order passed by the writ Court, would be executable. The circumstance would have been different in case, without any further directions regarding payment, the appeal was dismissed, in that case the direction of learned Single Judge would have remained intact and executable as such, which is not the case in the present circumstances. 19. Further, there is no denial of the fact that the respondents kept on attempting to make payment of the due interest as ordered by learned Single Judge, wherein several communications were sent to the appellant to receive the same, however, the same was not received by the appellant, apparently based on the insistence to get compound interest and not simple interest, which insistence apparently had no basis. 20. Though we have our own doubts qua the maintainability of the present appeal arising out of the order passed on the contempt petition in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. (supra) and of this Court in Subhash Chandra Vs. Srikant Goswami : 2024:AHC-LKO:58884-DB, in view of the fact that we have dealt with the controversy as arising in the matter while hearing appeal arising out of order passed by learned Single Judge in writ petition arising from order dated 16.01.2025 as well, the said aspect goes in oblivion. 21. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in both the appeals. The same are therefore, dismissed. 22. The amount, which the respondents were seeking to pay to the appellant, shall now be paid to the substituted appellant on his producing a certified copy of this order along with requisites pertaining to his bank accounts etc. and the fact that he is the sole legal representative of deceased Mohd. Rais Khan. April 13, 2026 AHA SPLAD No. 96 of 2025 5 (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) Digitally signed by :- AFZAL HUSAIN ABBASI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad