HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 6125 of 2026 Court No. - 53 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J. 1. The present contempt petition has been preferred alleging non-compliance of the order dated 22.07.2026 passed in Special Appeal No. 788/2026, the order whereof is quoted hereinunder: "1. Heard Shri Harish Chandra Pratap, learned counsel for the original petitioner/appellant; learned Standing Counsel for the State, Shri Devesh Vikram, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 & 4 and, Ms. Shambhavi Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent no.5. 2. Present intra-Court appeal has arisen against the order of the learned single judge dated 05.05.2026 in Suman Kumari vs State of U.P. & 5 Ors., 2026:AHC:103651. By that order, the learned single judge has dismissed the aforesaid writ petition filed against the termination order dated 14.07.2020, 3. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, on 08.07.2026, we had made below quoted observations: "2. Submission is that the Supreme Court has set-aside similar termination order, conditionally vide order dated 13.05.2026 in Civil Appeal Nos.11215-11218 of 2024, Rajesh Kumar Chaturvedi Etc. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. and connected matters. Therein it has been observed as below : "7) In view of the foregoing, we dispose of these appeals with the following directions: (i) In the facts and circumstances of this case, the impugned order passed by the High Court stands set aside. The consequential action of termination also stands set aside at this stage. (ii) The State Government is at liberty to take recourse as permissible. We make it clear that while taking such recourse, the allegations as levelled against individual employees shall be enquired into in the manner as Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Harish Chandra Pratap, Ram Nath Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Suman Kumari .....Applicant(s) Smt. Aasha Chaudhary, District Basic Education Officer .....Opposite Party(s) prescribed, and observing the principles of natural justice prior to passing the final order. The intent of this Court is that the appellants/petitioners? civil right is going to be affected therefore, they should not be condemned unheard. In case it is found that the procedure prescribed in the 1973 Act does not apply, due opportunity of hearing ought to be given. The interim protection granted by this Court shall remain in operation subject to the outcome of the orders of the competent authority. Parties are at liberty to raise all the points as available to them." 3. At the stage of the writ petition being decided, the above appeal was pending. Though the interim order passed therein had been relied upon by the petitioner, the writ petition came to be dismissed. In any case, in view of the final pronouncement of the Supreme Court, the impugned order may not survive. 4. Matter requires consideration. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents pray for a short accommodation. 6. Put up as fresh on 22.07.2026. 7. Till the next date of listing, operation and effect of the impugned order dated 05.05.2026 passed by the learned single judge and the termination order are stayed as the controversy appears to be squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court. 8. The petitioner may be reinstated in services, forthwith." 4. Upon the case being taken up, no distinguishing fact or feature has been shown by learned counsel for the respondent as may allow us to consider the case of the original petitioner/appellant different from that considered by the Supreme Court in Rajesh Kumar Chaturvedi Etc. vs State of U.P. & Ors. and connected matters, Civil Appeal Nos. 11215- 11218 of 2024, vide order dated 13.05.2026. 5. By virtue of that order of the higher Court, the order of the learned single judge may not be sustained. It is accordingly set aside. The present intra-Court appeal is allowed and the writ petition is disposed of in terms of paragraph 7 of the order of the Supreme Court in Rajesh Kumar Chaturvedi (supra)." 2. Basically, the intra-court appeal came to be preferred against the order dated 05.05.2026 passed in Writ-A No. 8189 of 2020 wherein the appointment was cancelled and the late petitioner was dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that though by virtue of the order dated 17.09.2026, the applicant has been reinstated as an Assistant Teacher but payment of benefits have been made subject to working. Thus, he submits that the nature of the appointment of the applicant has been CAPL No. 6125 of 2026 2 transformed from regular to temporary / contractual. 4. Sri Devesh Vikram who appears for the opposite party submits that the appointment of the applicant is regular. However, the payment of salary or other benefits have been made subject to working in that regard. He submits that there has been no change in the status of the applicant to his detriment. 5. Bearing in mind the aforesaid factual situation as well as the stand taken by the parties before this Court, the contempt application is consigned to record, since there is substantial compliance made. 6. Instructions have been filed today is taken on record and marked as Appendix-A. September 30, 2026 Ashu CAPL No. 6125 of 2026 3 (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad