Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:61420 Court No. - 1 Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 1866 of 2025 Applicant :- Jyoti Prakash Mishra Opposite Party :- Ram Saran Singh, Chairman , The Regional Lavel Regularization Committee/ Joint Director Of Education And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shivendu Ojha,Sneh Pandey Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J. Heard the counsel for the applicant. The present contempt application has been filed pleading willful disobedience of the order dated 27.2.2025 passed by this Court in Writ - A No. 580 of 2025. The dispute in Writ - A No. 580 of 2025 was regarding an order passed by the concerned authority dismissing the claim of the applicant for regularization of his service. The said order was set- aside by this Court. The relevant part of the order dated 27.2.2025 is reproduced below : - "17. Even though their appointments were not proper still as referred above, the petitioners on strength of an interim order have worked for almost 27 years, without any complaint and were given benefit also, and therefore, in view of Jaggo (supra) and Radhey Shyam Yadav & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors, 2024 SCC Online SC 10, such appointments could be protected. The Court also takes note that petitioners are now about 61 years, therefore, in the interest of justice, impugned orders dated 5.9.2024 and 17.12.2024 are hereby set-aside and its legal consequence will follow. 18. Both the writ petitions are accordingly disposed of." The present contempt application has been filed with the plea that despite order dated 27.2.2025, the authorities are not treating the petitioner / applicant to be regularized in service. The order dated 27.2.2025 does not issue any direction to regularize the services of the petitioner / applicant or that the petitioner / applicant shall be considered or deemed to be regularized in service. There would be no automatic regularization of service of the applicant as a consequence of an order quashing the rejection of the claim of the applicant and there has to be a separate order for regularization of his services. The regularization of services of the applicant is not a natural legal consequence of the order quashing the rejection of his claim. In light of the judgment in Sri. Anil Kumar Gupta & Anr. vs. Pawan Kumar Singh & 25 Ors. 2016 (114) ALR 295, the Contempt Court cannot go behind the orders of the Writ Court. No cause of action for registering the proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 exists. The application is not maintainable and is dismissed. The applicant may exercise other remedies, if available to him, in law. Order Date :- 23.4.2025 Satyam Digitally signed by :- SATYAM AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad