HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 462 of 2025 Court No. - 8 HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J. Heard. Present contempt application has been filed alleging non compliance of the judgment and order dated 14.05.2019 passed in Writ Petition No. 24372 (S/S) of 2018. The relevant para of the said judgment and order is being reproduced hereinbelow:- "Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of finally permitting the petitioner to file an original application along with interim relief application before the Central Administration Tribunal with promptness, preferably within a period of fifteen days from today and if such Original Application is filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal along with Interim Relief Application, the same may be considered and decided with expedition, if possible. It is also clarified that the Central Administrative Tribunal may decide the interim relief application of the petitioners within a period of one month, if possible. Till the disposal of the interim relief application, the interim protection so granted to the petitioners vide order dated 4.09.2018 by this Court shall continue. " Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant was appointed and working on the post of Stringer in Door Darshan, Lucknow and when an advertisement was published for appointment of Stringer by the Director, Door Darshan, the applicant had approached this Court by filing the Writ Petition No. 24372 (S/S) of 2018 challenging the advertisement dated 01.08.2018. It has further been prayed therein to direct the opposite parties not to appoint Stringers in the districts where the petitioners are working as a Part Time Correspondents in consonance of the Order passed by the Prasar Bharti dated 30.08.2007 and 17.09.2009. The said writ petition was disposed of by judgment and order dated 14.05.2019, as quoted hereinabove. Learned Counsel for the applicant has further submitted that an original application Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : A.Z. Siddiqui, Prateek Tewari Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Raj Kumar Singh Abhaya Shanker Gaur .....Applicant(s) Ms. Priya Kumar, Director General, Doordarshan News, New Delhi And Another .....Opposite Party(s) along with interim relief application filed in the Central Administrative Tribunal but interim relief application has not been decided by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as, the C.A.T.) but the services of the applicant has been terminated vide order dated 05.10.2024, which is nothing but wilful and intentional disobedience of the judgment and order passed in Writ Petition. On the other hand, Shri Raj Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has submitted that the applicant has attained the age of superannuation on 26.06.2021, even then he was permitted to continue till 05.10.2024 and thereafter, the services were terminated and apart from his submissions, he drew the attention of this Court to two orders, firstly, the order dated 20.12.2022 passed in Original Application No. 104 of 2021 whereby the original application moved by the applicant before the C.A.T. was dismissed as having being infructuous as the applicant has attained the age of superannuation secondly, the order dated 29.07.2021 passed by the department after the dismissal of the Original Application of the applicant. Replying the aforesaid submission made on behalf of respondent, learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the said O.A. was with regard to the appointment of the applicant as Part Time Correspondence (P.T.C) and not related to Stringer, hence, the order relied by the learned counsel for the respondent is not applicable in the present case. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the applicant was working as P.T.C. and also reporting news, audio and visuals to the Door Darshan and All India Radio, he was never ever appointed as a Stringer. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, it is found that as per the admitted case of the applicant and others P.T.Cs in the writ petition that they were appointed as P.T.C. and apart from that they were also reporting news, audio and visuals to the Door Darshan and All India Radio and that is why they had approached this Court against the advertisement issued on 17.09.2009 for making appointment on the post of Stringer. The applicant was performing the work on the post of Stringer being a P.T.C., the post on which he was appointed and there is a retirement age of P.T.C. and after the age of superannuation in the year 2021 his right to continue as Stringer also goes with the same. The position would have been different if he would have been directly appointed as Stringer then the respondent could not ask him to discontinue till disposal of the interim relief application. So the discontinuance of the applicant from the post of Stringer does not amount to disobedience of the order passed in the Writ Petition. In view of the facts, circumstances and discussion made hereinabove, the present contempt application is dismissed. Notice issued, if any, stands discharged. CAPL No. 462 of 2025 2 November 10, 2025 Ashish CAPL No. 462 of 2025 3 (Manish Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHISH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench