Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:93241-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 541 of 2025 Appellant :- Anil Kumar Verma, District Basic Education Officer Respondent :- Krishna Kant Counsel for Appellant :- Kushmondeya Shahi Counsel for Respondent :- Prem Prakash Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 22.05.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge, in Contempt Application (Civil) No.3288 of 2024 wherein after hearing the parties, the learned Single Judge has required the appellant to file affidavit on the points formulated therein and has ordered that in case affidavit was not filed by the next date, the appellant shall remain present before the Court. 2. The services of the respondent were terminated by order dated 20.12.2021. Feeling aggrieved, Writ A No.1254 of 2022 was filed by the respondent wherein on 15.02.2022, an interim order was granted by the learned Single Judge whereby the effect and operation of the order dated 20.12.2021 was ordered to remain stayed. Pursuant to the said order, by order dated 31.03.2022, the respondent was permitted to join back on duty, however, the payment of salary was made subject to the outcome of the stay vacation application. 3. The writ petition filed by the respondent came to be allowed by order dated 06.03.2024 setting aside the order dated 20.12.2021 and in another writ petition filed by the respondent aggrieved of the order dated 31.03.2022, ordering for non-payment of salary, it was directed that he would be entitled to regular salary from the date of the impugned order i.e 20.12.2021. Aggrieved of the order dated 06.03.2024, the appellant filed special appeal. 4. The special appeal was disposed of by order dated 24.04.2025 with the following directions: "In the facts of the case, we are, however, of the view that the employer would be clearly entitled to conduct a fresh inquiry, in accordance with law. For such purposes, the respondent would be reinstated in services. It shall, however, be open for the employer to take work from the appellant or not. The appellant would also be paid his current salary. The question of payment of arrears of salary from 2021, however, shall abide by the fresh inquiry to be concluded by the employer, within a period of three months. The respondent-petitioner undertakes to cooperate in the inquiry." 5. When pursuant to the order passed by the learned Single Judge/Division Bench, the requisite was not paid to the respondents, the present contempt petition came to be filed wherein it was sought to be contended on behalf of the appellant that as the Division Bench has ordered for payment of current salary, the respondent was not entitled for payment for the period he has served pursuant to order dated 31.03.2022 despite the directions given by the learned Single Judge. 6. On account of the stand taken before the learned Single Judge in the contempt petition, the issues pertaining to non-compliance were framed and the appellant was directed to file his affidavit. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant attempted to make submissions that once the Division Bench has directed payment of the current salary and directed that the question of payment of arrears of salary from 2021 shall abide by the fresh inquiry to be concluded by the employer within a period of three months, the learned Single Judge was not justified in framing the issues pertaining to purported non-compliance in not making payment of the salary pursuant to the interim order granted by learned Single Judge during the pendency of the writ petition. It was submitted that the respondent is being paid the current salary from the month of April, 2025 and, therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be quashed and set aside. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents made submissions that the action of the appellant, in denying the arrears based on the directions of the Division Bench is absolutely baseless, inamsuch as, pursuant to the order dated 31.03.2022, the respondent has discharged his duties and once the order dated 20.12.2021 has been quashed and set aside, he is entitled to salary subject to the direction given by the Division Bench and, therefore, the appeal deserves dismissal. 9. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 10. Undisputed facts are that the order terminating the services of the respondent came to be stayed by the learned Single Judge by order dated 15.02.2022, which was followed by the appellant and the respondent was reinstated, however, a strange order was passed that he shall be paid salary subject to the outcome of the stay vacation application. 11. The fact of the matter is that not only the stay application filed by the appellant stands disposed of even the writ petition filed by the respondent has been allowed and therefore, even under the order dated 31.03.2022 of the appellants themselves, the respondent is entitled to the salary. 12. So far as the direction given by the Division Bench in appeal is concerned, the same apparently is confined to the period from the date of termination till the respondent had joined pursuant to the interim order as once the respondent has discharged his duties pursuant to the reinstatement, he cannot be denied salary for the said period. 13. In view thereof, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge. 14. The appeal has no substance, the same is, therefore, dismissed. Order Date :- 30.5.2025 RK/Jyotsana (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad