HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 14677 of 2025 Naveen Kumar Shrivastava …..Petitioner(s) Versus Union of India and 2 others …..Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Manoj Kumar Srivastava, Pankaj Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., Anupama Parashar Chief Justice's Court HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J. 1. Heard Shri Pankaj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Anupama Parashar, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 24.07.2025 whereby the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad (‘the Tribunal’) has closed the proceedings of Civil Misc. Contempt Petition No. 243 of 2024 filed by the petitioner alleging non-compliance of order dated 12.04.2024 passed in Original Application (‘OA’) No.1147 of 2018. Further relief has been claimed to direct the respondents No.2 and 3 to comply the order dated 12.04.2024 passed in the OA. 2 WRIA No. - 14677 of 2025 3. The petitioner had filed the OA claiming multiple reliefs inter alia for issuance of a direction to the respondents to grant Assured Career Progression (‘ACP’)/Modified Assured Career Progression (‘MACP’) from the date he became entitled as per Rules, with all consequential benefits. The same was allowed by the Tribunal by order 12.04.2024. 4. When the benefits determined and granted by the Tribunal in the order dated 12.04.2024 were not released in favour of the petitioner, he filed aforesaid contempt application, the proceeding thereof have been closed by the Tribunal on the ground that since the CBI Appeal No.141 of 2013 was still pending consideration and the entire payment had been made subject to outcome of the said proceedings, the order dated 03.03.2025 passed by the respondents was in strict compliance of the order passed by the Tribunal. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made submissions that the petitioner was accorded only the first ACP w.e.f. 26.05.2007 and no indication was made regarding grant of 2nd and 3rd ACP, to which he was entitled. 6. After considering the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner at first hearing of the matter, this Court passed following order on 25.09.2025:- “1. It is inter alia submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the Tribunal was not justified in dismissing the contempt petition only on account of the fact that the respondents had passed order dated 03.03.2025. Submissions have been made that the order dated 12.04.2024 passed in Original Application filed by the petitioner was very specific directing the respondents to consider the grant of ACP/MACP to the petitioner from the date he was entitled for the same as per rules with all consequential benefits, however, by the order dated 03.03.2025, he has only been accorded the first ACP with effect from 26.05.2007 and no indication has been made regarding the grant of second and third ACP to which he was entitled. 2. Counsel for the respondents prays for time to obtain instructions in the matter. 3. Time prayed for is allowed. 4. Needful may be done before the next date. 3 WRIA No. - 14677 of 2025 5. List on 28.10.2025, as fresh.” 7. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned on various dates granting further time to the respondents to answer the specific query made in the order dated 25.09.2025 and, lastly, following order was passed on 11.03.2026:- “1. Learned A.S.G.I. pursuant to the order dated 13.02.2026 submits that instructions have been received regarding the matter being considered by the respondents in consultation with the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) and Department of Legal Affairs and prays for time to place on record the outcome of the said consideration. 2. Needful may be done before the next date. 3. List the petition on 15.04.2026, as fresh. “ 8. Today when the matter was taken up, learned counsel for the respondents has placed instructions dated 28.04.2026 issued by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Prayagraj indicating that the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) had advised not to accept grant of promotion to the petitioner till final decision on CBI Appeal by the Lucknow Bench of Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and, hence, the administrative machinery has been advised to wait for final decision of the High Court on the appeal before taking any decision on regularizing the promotion of the petitioner. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents has advanced arguments on the same lines on which instructions have been received by her and it is contended that since the Tribunal, in its order dated 12.04.2024, had clearly observed that the petitioner would be entitled for the reliefs subject to final outcome of pending CBI appeal, no error has been committed by the Tribunal in closing the proceedings of contempt application and, therefore, no interference is warranted in the order impugned. 10. We have considered the submissions made and perused the material available on record. 4 WRIA No. - 14677 of 2025 11. Relevant paragraphs of the order 12.04.2024 passed by the Tribunal allowing the O.A. read as under:- “10. The aforesaid appeal which is pending as “Defective” since 2013 is clearly not the fault of the applicant and there is no justification why the same should stand as a hindrance in the way of his career advancement especially when he has been exonerated of all the charges, even if the respondents say it is from the departmental angle only. It is egregiously wrong on the part of the respondents to deny the applicant the due promotion after he has been cleared from the vigilance angle, for such a long time due to the pendency of an appeal which has not even been admitted till date. Since the appeal filed by the CBI against the CBI Court order exonerating the applicant from all the charges is pending since 2013 as 'Defective' and there is no stay order, we cannot but say that the applicant is undergoing undue harassment by being deprived of the due promotion till date. 11. In view of the above facts and discussions and also the various case laws relied upon by the applicant, we are of the considered opinion that a case is made out in favour of the applicant for providing him further promotions. As contended in his rejoinder, the applicant has mentioned that provisional promotion granted to him after opening the sealed cover is not in accordance with the DoPT circular dated 19.01.2017 which is not correct. The appeal filed by the CBI is still categorized as 'Defective' and it can be safely interpreted that no appeal has been filed till date. Even if it is presumed that the defective appeal may be corrected and an outcome of appeal may come in due course, taking into account the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Shyamveer Upadhyay vs. State of U.P. and 3 others (supra) , as well as the DoPT circular dated 19.01.2017, the applicant is entitled for the relief claimed in 8 (A) 8 (B) and 8 (C), subject to the outcome of the pending appeal. Hence, the impugned order dated 20.03.2018 is hereby quashed to the extent of 'provisional promotion in terms of DoPT OM No. 11012/6/2016-Estt.A-III dated 19.01.2017 w.e.f. the date he assumes charge of the post" and the impugned order dated 27/28.08.2018 is also set aside and the respondents are directed to grant the applicant regular promotions which are due to him, subject to the outcome of the said defective appeal. The respondents are also directed to consider the grant of ACP/ MACP to the applicant from the date he is entitled for the same as per the rules with all the consequential benefits. The said exercise should be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Thus, the O.A. stands allowed to the extent discussed in the above paragraph. All the associated M.As. also stand disposed of. No costs.” 12. A bare perusal of the abovementioned order indicates that the Tribunal has taken note of the fact that against acquittal of the petitioner, 5 WRIA No. - 14677 of 2025 appeal filed by the CBI was categorized as 'defective' and that it can be safely interpreted that no appeal has been filed till today. The Tribunal has further observed that even if it is presumed that the defective appeal may be corrected and outcome may come in due course, taking into account the judgment in Writ A No.10625 of 2020 (Shyamveer Upadhyay vs. State of U.P. and 3 others), decided on 09.12.2020, as well as the DoPT circular dated 19.01.2017, the petitioner is held entitled for the relief claimed in 8 (A) 8 (B) and 8 (C) therein, subject to the outcome of the pending appeal. Further, the respondents were directed to grant the petitioner regular promotions which are due to him, 'subject to the outcome of the said defective appeal' and also to consider the grant of ACP/ MACP to the applicant from the date he is entitled for the same as per rules with all the consequential benefits. 13. In our opinion, the directions issued by the Tribunal were plain, simple and unambiguous and the respondents were bound to accord benefits granted by the Tribunal in favour of the petitioner. The mere fact that CBI appeal was lying defective since 2013 and the relief granted to the petitioner has been made ‘subject to outcome of the pending appeal’, would not empower the respondents to withhold the benefits till final decision in the appeal. As a matter of fact, the respondents, in the compliance affidavit filed before the Tribunal and also in the instructions furnished before this Court, have treated the pendency of defective CBI appeal as an interim order operative against grant/release of benefits awarded by the Tribunal and the words “subject to outcome of the appeal” have been clearly misunderstood and misinterpreted by them. Similarly, the Tribunal has also erred in taking the same view while consigning the contempt application to records and closing the proceedings. 14. In our opinion, the meaning and import of the directions issued by the Tribunal in relation to defective CBI Appeal is that benefits should be released/granted in favour of the petitioner, however, in case the defect in the appeal stands removed and, ultimately, the appeal is 6 WRIA No. - 14677 of 2025 allowed setting aside acquittal of the petitioner, necessary consequences would follow and as per circumstances post the decision, the principle of restitution as per Section 144 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 may also apply. 15. In Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu & Another : JT 2004 (1) SC 289, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had occasion to interpret the meaning of “subject to” and it was observed as under:- “91. Furthermore, the expression ‘subject to' must be given effect to. 92. In Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition at page 1278 the expression ‘Subject to’ has been defined as under : "Liable, subordinate, subservient, inferior, obedient to; governed or affected by; provided that; provided, answerable for. Homan v. Employers Reinsurance Corporation, 345 Mo. 650, 136 S.W. 2d 289, 302" 93. The word "Determination" must also be given its full effect to, which pre- supposes application of mind and expression of the conclusion. It connotes the official determination and not a mere opinion of finding. 94. In Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyar, Second Edition, it is stated: "Determination or order. The expression "determination" signifies an effective expression of opinion which ends a controversy or a dispute by some authority to whom it is submitted under a valid law for disposal. The expression "order" must have also a similar meaning, except that it need not operate to end the dispute, Determination or order must be judicial or quasi-judicial. Jaswant Sugar Mills v. Lakshmi Chand, : AIR 1963 SC 677, 680 [Constitution of India Article 136]" 95. In Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, it is stated: "A "determination" is a "final judgment" for purposes of appeal when the trial court has completed its adjudication of the rights of the parties in the action. Thomas Van Dyken Joint Venture v. Van Dyken, 90 Wis. 236, 279 N.W. 2d 459, 463" 16. In the opinion of the Court word “determination” which has been termed as a final judgment by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Leyland Ltd. (supra), would also cover the word “outcome” used by the Tribunal in the order allowing the OA and, hence, we are of the view that mere pendency of defective CBI Appeal would not stop flowing of benefits in favour of the petitioner. 7 WRIA No. - 14677 of 2025 17. In view of the above, we deem it appropriate to set aside the order impugned and revive the contempt petition on record of the Tribunal for further consideration in the light of observations made hereinabove. 18. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. 19. The order dated 25.07.2025 passed by the Tribunal is hereby set aside. 20. Civil Misc. Contempt Petition No.243 of 2024 is restored on the file of the Tribunal and the same shall be listed before the Tribunal in third week of May, 2026 on an application filed by the petitioner along with a copy of this order in the Registry of the Tribunal. (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) April 29, 2026 Jyotsana Digitally signed by :- JYOTSANA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad