1 CGHC010308012026 2026:CGHC:36404-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6133 of 2026 1. Krishna Kant Tiwari S/o Late Shri Prem Ram Tiwari Aged About 75 Years R/o Rajiv Vihar Seepat Road Raj Kishore Nagar, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sanghthan Through Its Commissioner, 18, Institutional Area, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi – 110016 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Regional Office, Raipur, Sector-24 Naya Raipur (Atal Nagar) District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. The Assistant Commissioner (Administration ) Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, 18, Institutional Area, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi - 110016 ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Abhyuday Singh, Advocate DB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Parth Prateem Sahu,J & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sachin Singh Rajput, J Order on Board Per Parth Prateem Sahu, J 14.8.2026 1. This writ petition is preferred by petitioner challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 10.01.2019 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Circuit Sitting Bilaspur (henceforth ‘the Tribunal’) in Miscellaneous SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI 2 Application No.203/00655/2013 in Original Application No.341/1999. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 23.9.1977 petitioner was appointed as Primary Teacher in the Education Department in the then State of Madhya Pradesh. On 23.9.1987 petitioner joined as Primary Teacher in the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan. He was confirmed on the post of Primary Teacher on 23.9.1989 and retired from service in the month of January 2012 upon attaining age of superannuation. The Central Government vide Memorandum/ Order dated 7.8.1989, making it applicable from 1.8.1989, granted pay protection to the candidates who were in government service prior to their appointment. Petitioner covered under the aforementioned memorandum was not granted benefit of pay-protection, he had submitted a representation dated 17.12.1998 before the authority concerned for fixation of his pay-scale in accordance with the Memorandum dated 7.8.1989. Said representation was rejected on 25.1.1999 against which petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing OA No.341/1999 and the same was also dismissed. Thereafter, petitioner approached this High Court by filing a writ petition, which came to be registered as WP No.5343/1999 and the Division Bench vide order dated 26.2.2007 dismissed writ petition. Aggrieved therewith 3 petitioner filed special leave petition before Hon’ble Supreme Court and the same was allowed in part vide order dated 12.11.2013 with a direction to correct the service record of the appellant/petitioner herein protecting his last drawn pay in Madhya Pradesh Service as on 1.8.1989 and thereafter he will be given consequential service benefits also on that basis. In compliance of the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court, respondent No.1 vide office order dated 21/24-02-2014 pay of petitioner was refixed w.e.f. 1.8.1989. A corrigendum correcting pay-scale fixed thereunder under aforementioned office order was also issued on 05.08.2015. Dissatisfied with the decision taken by respondent authorities, petitioner again approached the Tribunal by filing a miscellaneous application in Original Application No.341/1999 for a direction to respondents to comply with the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 12.11.2013 in words and spirit. The Tribunal vide order dated 10.01.2019 dismissed the miscellaneous application by holding that the department has already complied with the direction contained in order dated 12.11.2013. Petitioner thereafter preferred a contempt petition before Hon’ble Supreme Court for willful disobedience of the order dated 12.11.2013 and the same was also closed vide order dated 7.10.2025 on the ground that no case is made out for initiating contempt proceeding against the respondents for 4 alleged violation of the order under contempt. Then, petitioner approached the Secretary, Supreme Court Legal Services Committee where he was advised to file writ petition before the High Court against the order of Tribunal dated 10.1.2019 passed in Miscellaneous Application filed in OA No.341/1999. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner would submit that while in service of the State Government, petitioner was drawing salary in the pay-scale of Rs.1400-40- 1440-50-2340-60-2640/- and as on 01.01.1987 at Rs.1440/-. Vide order dated 12.11.2013, Hon’ble Supreme Court directed the respondents to correct service record of petitioner herein protecting his last drawn pay in the Madhya Pradesh service as on 1.8.1989. However, the respondents have fixed the pay of petitioner in the pay scale of Rs.1200-30-1560-40-2040/-. Thus, it is apparent that the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court has not been complied with in its letter and spirit. However, learned Tribunal has not appreciated the aforesaid aspect and erroneously dismissed the application by recording that department has already complied with the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court. He submits that learned Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the effect of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 12.11.2013 and thus committed an error in holding that directions contained therein has already been complied with. He submits that denial of proper 5 implementation of the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court has continuing civil consequences affecting the petitioner’s retiral and consequential monetary benefits. Hence, the order impugned is illegal, arbitrary, perverse and is liable to be quashed. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents along with writ petition. 5. After failing to get relief before the learned Tribunal and, thereafter, before this Court in connection with his claim for pay protection under the Office Memorandum dated 7.8.1989 of the Central Government, the petitioner approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing a Civil Appeal, which came to be registered as Civil Appeal No.10239/2013, arising out of SLP (C) No.19611/2007. Vide order dated 12.11.2013 Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed petitioner’s appeal in part. Para-10 of the order reads as under:- “10. In the circumstances, we allow this appeal in part. The O.A. No.341 of 1991 filed by the appellant will consequently stand partly allowed. The order to as on passed by the High Court will stand interfered that extent. The respondents are directed to correct the service record of the appellant protecting his last drawn pay in the Madhya Pradesh service 1.8.1989 and thereafter they will give him the consequential service benefits also on that basis. The needful shall be done in three months. In the facts of this case, we pass no order as to costs.” 6 6. Reading of above would show that respondent Department was directed to correct the service record of appellant/ petitioner herein protecting his last drawn pay in the Madhya Pradesh service as on 1.8.1989 and thereafter they will give him consequential service benefits also on that basis. 7. Vide office order dated 21/24-2-2014, the respondent Department re-fixed pay of petitioner at Rs.1560/- w.e.f. 01.08.1989 in the scale of pay of Rs.1200-30-1560-40-2040/- although petitioner was drawing pay at Rs.1260/- in the Kendriya Vidhyalay. 8. After issuance of order dated 21/24-2.2014 by respondent Department, petitioner preferred contempt petition before Hon’ble Supreme Court alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 12.11.2013. Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed contempt petition holding that no case is made out for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondents for alleged violation of the order dated 12.11.2013 and closed the contempt proceedings. 9. From the above chronology of facts it is clear that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has already closed the contempt proceedings filed by petitioner for alleged violation of order dated 12.11.2013 recording that no case is made out for initiating contempt proceedings against respondents for alleged violation of order dated 12.11.2013. When once Hon’ble 7 Supreme Court, upon consideration of the matter, has recorded a categorical finding that no contempt is made out, the issue stood conclusively settled and is binding upon all subordinate Courts, Tribunals and authorities and therefore, the same could not thereafter be re-agitated before the Tribunal. The Tribunal being subordinate to the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judicial hierarchy, could not have undertaken a fresh examination of the very same allegation or arrived at a conclusion contrary thereto, directly or indirectly,. The learned Tribunal was, therefore, fully justified in recording that respondent department has complied with the orders and no further orders are required to be issued. The order passed by the Tribunal cannot be said to suffer from any error of law or jurisdiction warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. 10. For the foregoing discussion and reason, the writ petition being sans merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Judge roshan/-