HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 6109 of 2026 Court No. - 53 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J. 1. The present contempt application had been preferred alleging willful defiance of the order dated 19.04.2007 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12329 of 1991, order whereof is quoted hereinunder.- "R.V.S. Higher Secondary School, Kanhijari, district Kanpur Dehat was formerly recognized up to Junior High School and was granted recognition up to High School on 27.5.1981. Though there was no sanctioned post of teacher in the L.T. Grade, the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 were appointed in L.T. Grade we.f. 1.1.1983 and 1.10.1982 respectively. Four posts of Assistant Teachers in the L.T. Grade were sanctioned by the State Government on 25.4.1984. The Committee of Management of the institution, thereafter appointed the petitioners as L.T. Grade teachers on ad hoc basis vide letter of appointment dated 18.7.1984, appended as Annexure I to the writ petition. The grievance of the petitioners is that Head Master of the institution- respondent no. 2 appointed his two sons in place of the petitioners and the petitioners were not allowed to discharge their duties w.e.f. July, 1990. The petitioners have prayed that a writ of mandamus be issued to the respondents for payment of their salary w.e.f. 1.7.1990 and continue to pay the same till regularly selected candidates join the posts held by the petitioners. Even after the case was taken in the revised list, no one appeared for the respondents and, therefore, only counsel for the petitioners could advance arguments. Heard him and perused the record. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Banshi Dhar Mishra, Shalini Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Mahesh Singh @ Mahesh Singh Yadav .....Applicant(s) Shri Manoj Kumar Dwivedi .....Opposite Party(s) A bare perusal of paragraphs 16 and 20 of the Counter Affidavit sworn by Sri Sita Ram Gupta, Manager of the institution, in question, shows that he has alleged that Annexures 1, 2 and 3 to the writ petition, i.e., appointment letter and its intimation sent to the respondents are forged documents. Paragraphs 16 and 20 of the aforesaid Counter Affidavit are quoted below :- "16. That the Assistant District Inspector of Schools Kanpur and District Inspector of Schools Kanpur issued some letters on 21.7.1984, 1.8.1984 and 3.8.1984 which shows that till 1984 it was merely district Kanpur and not the Kanpur Dehat.... 20. That the petitioners have filed some forged documents in the writ petition as Annexure 1, 2 and 3 showing Kanpur Dehat on 18.7.1984 and 20.7.84 shwoing forged signature of the answering respondent as the Principal." In reply to the averments made in paragraphs 16 and 20 of the Counter Affidavit, the petitioners, in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the rejoinder affidavit, have stated that :- "12. That the contents of paragraphs 16,17,18,and 19 of the counter affidavit, as stated are deliberately misleading. If in the letters, referred to in paragraph under reply, as per habit, the district had been mentioned as district Kanpur, no inference can be drawn that district Kanpur had not been bifurcated in 2 districts upto August, 1984. The maker of the Counter Affidavit, as of fact, has to establish that district Kanpur was bifurcated after August, 1984 as a fact, on the basis of relevant records and not by inference. As stated in the foregoing paragraphs, the district Kanpur was bifurcased in 2 districts in the year 1983 and the deponent shall produce relevant gazette notification to establish the same. 13. That the contents of paragraph no. 20 of the counter affidavit are wholly false. Annexures 1,2 and 3 to the writ petition bear the genuine signautes of the maker of the counter affidavit and that of Sri Ram Vilas Srivastava, the then Head Master of the institution respectively." Petitioners have not filed any notification about bifurcation of Kanpur district into Kanpur Nagar and Kanpur Dehat. The date of bifurcation of Kanpur into Kanpur Nagar and Kanpur Dehat was enquired from District Judge Kanpur who informed that that it was bifurcated into the two aforesaid districts vide Government Order dated 26.11.1985, thus, CAPL No. 6109 of 2026 2 Annexures 1 to 3 cannot be said to be reliable documents. It is an admitted fact that the petitioners were not allowed to perform duties w.e.f. 1.7.1990. They were appointed as ad hoc employees and their appointment was admittedly not approved by District Inspector of Schools. The petitioners are, therefore, not entitled to any salary for the period they did not perform work. It may be that they were illegally restrained by the respondents from signing the attendance sheet and were not allowed to perform teaching work, but the fact remains that they did not perform teaching work and cannot claim salary. In so far as the allegation of engagement of sons of Head Master in place of the petitioners is concerned, the District Inspector of Schools in his counter affidavit has clearly stated that he had issued notice to the institution and recommended the higher authorities for cancellation of the appointment of sons of the Head Master in view of Section 16-E-10 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission Act. Engagement or disengagement of sons of the Head Master in place of the petitioners is material for adjudication of the instant case. Even if Annexures 1 to 3 to the writ petition are treated to be genuine documents, the petitioners would not have any better right than 'ad hoc' appointees as per the terms of their letter of appointment which provided that they would continue in service till regularly selected candidate from the Selection Committee joins but it does not mean that the services of the petitioners could not be dispensed with. However, it does not give any right to the Headmaster to appoint his sons in place of the petitioners by illegally not allowing them to perform their duties. It is admitted fact that the Headmaster of the institution was in service when his sons were appointed. Though he calims not to have participated in the selection proceedings, but as the head of the institution certainly would have carried weight on the selection committee while they were considering the appointment of his sons. There is a clear bar in law in such appointment of the blood relations of the head of the institution and the member of the Committee of Management. Merely because the Headmaster conveniently removed himself from participation in the selection process by the Selection Committee will not ratify the selection as legal and valid selection. The two sons of the Headmaster are continuing till today in service as no CAPL No. 6109 of 2026 3 candidates have joined after regular selection and the petitioners having been illegaly restrained from performing their duties in terms of the appointment letter, are entitled to their salary since the date of their illegal termination. In this view of the matter, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned orders are quashed. The petitioners shall be entitled to the benefits of service as they had been illegally restrained from performing their duties due to the appointment of two sons of the Headmaster of the institution, in question. It is further directed that the since salary has not been illegally paid to the petitioners on account of illegal appointment of two sons of the Headmaster of the institution, it shall be recovered from them and paid to the petitioners to meet the ends of justice. No order as to costs." 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that though Surendra Singh Yadav was sailing on the same boat and was similarly situated. He, post retirement in the year 2018, has been paid post retiral benefits. But the applicant who superannuated in the year 2025 is not being paid salary and pensionary benefits without considering the import and the impact of the order of the writ court dated 19.04.2007. 3. In the opinion of the Court, the opposite parties were required to accord salary to the petitioner while recovering the same from two sons of the Headmaster. The question whether pension is payable or not and whether there has been discrimination vis-a-vis, the applicant and Surendra Singh Yadav is a matter which is to be raised and adjudicated in an appropriate proceedings which is definitely not the contempt. 4. Accordingly the contempt application is consigned to record, leaving it open for the applicant to pursue the remedies which are permissible under law. September 8, 2026 Rajesh CAPL No. 6109 of 2026 4 (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad