Allahabad High Court
INDRAJEET PANDEYversusMR. MANOJ KUMAR MISHRA, DISTRICT INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS
- Decided
- Bench
- VIKAS BUDHWAR
Holding
The Court held that the contempt petition cannot be entertained because the salary dispute must be decided in the writ jurisdiction, and therefore the petition is consigned to the record without prejudice to the petitioner’s right to challenge the order.
Summary
Indrajeet Pandey filed a contempt petition alleging that the District Inspector of Schools, Ballia, had unlawfully withheld his salary for the period February 2011 to July 2014 despite a prior High Court order directing payment. The High Court had earlier quashed an order dated 3.11.1999 for violating natural justice and had directed the respondent to pay salary, later staying a 20.8.2013 order that stopped his salary. The respondent submitted an affidavit and a subsequent order dated 22.08.2026 asserting that no attendance record existed for the disputed period and invoking the "no work, no pay" principle. Pandey contended that the Court’s earlier direction made him entitled to the arrears and that the principle should not apply. The Court examined the earlier judgments, the affidavit, and the "no work, no pay" rule, and concluded that the contempt petition could not be entertained as the substantive salary dispute must be resolved in the writ forum. Consequently, the contempt application was consigned to the record, with all notices discharged, leaving the petitioner free to challenge the order in appropriate proceedings.
Issues considered
- Whether the respondent's order denying salary for February 2011 to July 2014 constitutes contempt of the High Court's earlier direction.
- Whether the "no work, no pay" principle applies despite the High Court's order that the petitioner was entitled to salary for the said period.
- Whether the contempt petition should be dismissed or consigned to the record pending resolution of the underlying writ proceedings.
Subjects
- contempt
- salary arrears
- no work no pay
- natural justice
- writ jurisdiction
- Article 226
- High Court order compliance
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 4818 of 2026
Indrajeet Pandey
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, District Inspector Of
Schools .....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Gopal Ji Rai
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :
Court No. - 53
HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.
1. This Court on 31.08.2026 proceeded to pass the following orders:-
"1. The present contempt petition has been preferred alleging non-compliance of the
order dated 21.08.2025 passed in Writ A No.36704 of 2014, the order whereof is
quoted hereinunder:
"1. Heard Sri Gopal Ji Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing
Counsel for the State respondents.
2. Present writ petition has been filed for following relief:
"(A) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order
dated 20.8.2013 passed by the District Inspector of Schools Ballia (Annexure no. 10 to
the writ petition).
(B) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the District
Inspector of Schools Ballia to consider the claim of petitioner as per circular dated
29.3.2011 issued by State Govt. and pay the salary along with arrears to petitioner
within a period as fixed by this Hon'ble Court."
3. Petitioner was appointed in the year 1990 and his appointment was approved by
respondent no.2, but surprisingly, respondent no.2 has withheld the salary of the
petitioner vide order dated 3.11.1999. The said order was assailed before this Court
in Writ A No. 54167 of 1999. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated
18.07.2005, which reads as below:
"By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has approached this Court for
Issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the Impugned order dated 3.11.1999 (Annexure
12 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No.2 and further for Issuing a writ in
the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in the Functioning
of the petitioner as L.T. grade teacher.
The case of the petitioner is that on the basis of promotion of one Sri Shivnand Pandey
on the post of Lecturer, a vacancy has taken place and after following the proper
procedure as provided under the Act and Rules, the petitioner was given an
CAPL No. 4818 of 2026
2
appointment. The appointment of the petitioner was approved by order dated
15.7.1991 by the respondent No.2. A copy of the same has been annexed as Annexure
No.4 to the writ petition. Petitioner submits that salary was being paid but
subsequently, the same was stopped, therefore, the petitioner has approached this
Court by way, of Writ Petition No.35929 of 1994, which was disposed of vide order
dated 10.11.1994 directing the District Inspector of Schools to decide the
representation of the petitioner within two months Petitioner submits that on the basis
of the aforesaid direction issued by this Court, the District Inspector of Schools,
respondent No.2 passed an order dated 16.10.1996 by which the appointment of the
petitioner has been cancelled. It has been stated in the order that the signature of the
District Inspector of Schools is forged and no prior approval was taken prior to the
appointment of the petitioner.
A specific averment has been made in Paras 19 and 20 of the writ petition that before
issuance of the order dated 3.11.1999 no show cause notice or opportunity has been
given to the petitioner. As no show cause or opportunity has been given to the
petitioner, as such, in view of the well settled principle of law, the same is liable to be
quashed only on the ground that the order dated 3.11.1999 is against the principle of
natural justice.
A counter affidavit has been filed stating various other things but no reply to Paras 19
and 20 of the writ petition has been given in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the
respondents. it is also very surprising that after para 14 no reply has been give to
paragraphs 15 to 21. After para 14, the reply of para 22 of the writ petition has been
given. It clearly goes to show that the averment made by the petitioner in the writ
petition that no notice or opportunity has been give prior to the order dated 3.11.1999
appears to be correct.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel and
perused the record.
From the averment made in the writ petition, the same has not been controverted in
the counter affidavit regarding notice and opportunity to the petitioner prior to the
passing of the impugned order dated 3.11.1999. It is well settled law that if the
allegations made in the writ petition are not controverted, it will be presumed that the
allegations made in the writ petition are correct.
In view of the aforesaid fact, as the order dated 3.11.1999 (Annexure 12 to the writ
petition) has been passed without affording an opportunity to the petitioner and the
same is against the principles of natural justice, as such, the same is hereby quashed.
The matter is remitted back to the respondent No.2 to pass appropriate and detailed
order according to law after affording an opportunity to the petitioner and the
Committee of Management. The said order be passed by the respondent No.2
preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of the certified
copy of this order.
With these observations the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to
costs."
4. Consequent to the same, respondents have released salary to the petitioner. But
CAPL No. 4818 of 2026
3
surprisingly again, the salary was withheld in 2011 and again on 20.08.2013, the
respondents have stopped payment of salary on the ground that the petitioner is
working on surplus post. The said order was assailed in the present writ petition.
5. Considering the submissions and material on record, this Court has passed an
order on 18.07.2014, which reads as below:
"The petitioner earlier approach this Court by means of Writ Petition No. 54167 of
1999, wherein an interim order was granted on 23rd December, 1999, that if the
petitioner is working on the post of Assistant Teacher, he shall be permitted to
continue to work on the said post.
The said writ petition was ultimately finally disposed of on 18.7.2005 and the District
Inspector of Schools was directed to pass a fresh order after hearing the petitioner, in
furtherance the District Inspector of Schools by means of order dated 5.11.2005,
found that the petitioner's appointment was valid and he is entitled for payment of
salary.
Accordingly, the petitioner is working and receiving salary but by means of impugned
order his salary has been stopped on the ground that the subject which the petitioner
is teaching is not a recognized subject.
The petitioner has made out a prima facie case.
Learned Standing Counsel appears for State functionaries. He may file counter
affidavit within six weeks. Rejoinder, if any, within a week thereafter.
Issue notice to respondent no.4 returnable at an early date indicating therein that he
may file counter affidavit within four weeks from the date of receipt of a notice.
Till the next date of listing the effect and operation of the impugned order 20.8.2013,
passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Ballia as per it relates to the petitioner is
stayed. The petitioner shall be permitted to continue as Assistant Teacher and his
salary shall be paid regularly till further orders of this Court.
List the matter after expiry of the aforesaid period."
6. Consequent to the abovesaid interim orders, the petitioner was continued in service
and finally, on attaining the age of superannuation, he retired on 31.03.2025. In view
of the same, nothing survives with regard to prayer (a). As far as prayer (b) is
concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to the notice of Court that
the respondents have not paid salary to the petitioner from February, 2011 to
17.07.2014. Only respondents have released salary after the interim order granted by
this Court in the present writ petition. Hence, petitioner is also entitled for salary for
the said period.
7. In such circumstances, as the petitioner was continued and retired by virtue of the
interim order granted by this Court on 18.07.2014, this writ petition is disposed of
directing the petitioner to file claim/representation, within a period of two weeks from
today before the third respondent. On filing of such claim, the third respondent may
consider the same, if required by getting records from the fourth respondent and pass
appropriate order, within a period of two months thereafter."
2. This Court on 28.07.2026 proceeded to pass the following orders:
"1. Let a copy of the contempt application be served upon Ms. Bhavya Tiwari, learned
CAPL No. 4818 of 2026
4
Standing Counsel during the course of the day, who shall seek instructions in the
matter.
2. Put up this case on 27.08.2026, as fresh."
3. Today Ms. Bhavya Tiwari has produced before this Court instructions dated
22.08.2026 of the opposite party annexing therewith the order deciding the claim on
22.08.2026 treating the period from February, 2011 to 17.07.2014, as no work, no
pay.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that a conjoint reading of paragraph 6
and 7 of the judgment and the order of the writ court would reveal that this Court had
made the applicant entitled for the payment of salary for the said period.
5. Reliance has also been placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board vs. C. Muddaiah, 2007 (7) SCC 689.
6. Though this Court was to issue notice to the opposite party, but since now Ms.
Bhavya Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel has obtained instructions on behalf of the
opposite party, she seeks time to file an affidavit in that regard.
7. Put up this case on 18.09.2026 as fresh."
2. Today, affidavit has been filed on behalf of the opposite party annexing
therewith the order dated 22.08.2026 negating the claim of the applicant.
The affidavit dated 16.09.2026 of the opposite party discloses as under:-
"7. That it is further submitted that the Principal, Jangali Baba Inter College, Gadwar
District Ballia submitted in statement on 13.08.2026 in writing that "श्री इन्द्रजीत पाण्डेय
सहायक अध्यापक के पद पर इस विद्यालय में कार्यरत थे जो दिनांक 31.03.2025 सेवानिवृत हो चुके है। श्री
इन्द्रजीत पाण्डेय का वेतन फरवरी 2011 से 17.07.2014 तक का नही हुआ है। विद्यालय में वर्ष 2010 से
वर्ष 2014 के बीच की उपस्थिति पंजिका उपलब्ध नहीं है। जिसके कारण श्री इन्द्रजीत पाण्डेय सहायक
अध्यापक की उपस्थिति प्रमाणित नहीं होती है अतः शासनादेश दिनांक 18.04.2019 के बिन्दु-7 के अनुसार
इनकी उपस्थिति एवं कार्य प्रमाणित नहीं होने की दशा में उक्त अवधि का अवशेष देय नहीं है।"
8. That further in compliance of the order passed by the Hon'ble court, the deponent
after calling reports / records as well as after scrutinizing the material available on
record, considered the claim of the applicant and decided the same by means of
speaking and reasoned order dated 22.08.2026 with the following observation:-
निर्णय
उपरोक्त वर्णित तथ्यों के दृष्टिगत प्रकरण में सम्यक विचारोपरान्त माननीय उच्च न्यायालय इलाहाबाद में योजित
याचिका संख्या - 36704 / 2014 इन्द्रजीत पाण्डेय बनाम उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य व अन्य में पारित माननीय उच्च
न्यायालय के आदेश दिनांक : 21.08.2025 तथा योजित अवमानना वाद संख्या - 4818 / 2026 इन्द्रजीत
पाण्डेय बनाम मनोज कुमार मिश्र जिला विद्यालय निरीक्षक बलिया में पारित माननीय उच्च न्यायालय के आदेश
दिनांक 28.07.2026 के अनुपालन में याची के अवशेष अवधि में कार्य किये जाने / उपस्थिति का कोई
प्रमाण / साक्ष्य उपलब्ध नहीं होने की दशा में NO WORK NO PAY का सिद्धान्त के आधार पर प्रत्यावेदन
अस्वीकार / अमान्य करते हुए प्रकरण निस्तारित किया जाता है।
Copy of the order dated 22.08.2026 passed by the deponent is being filed herewith
and marked as ANNEXURE NO. 1 to this affidavit."
CAPL No. 4818 of 2026
5
3. Further the order dated 22.08.2026 reads as under:-
" माननीय उच्च न्यायालय इलाहाबाद में योजित याचिका संख्या- 36704 / 2014 इन्द्रजीत पाण्डेय बनाम
उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य व अन्य में पारित माननीय उच्च न्यायालय के आदेश दिनांक : 21.08.2025 तथा
योजित अवमानना वाद संख्या - 4818 / 2026 इन्द्रजीत पाण्डेय बनाम मनोज कुमार मिश्र जिला
विद्यालय निरीक्षक बलिया में पारित माननीय उच्च न्यायालय के आदेश दिनांक 28.07.2026 के
अनुपालन में प्रकरण का निस्तारण -
श्री इन्द्रजीत पाण्डेय सहायक अध्यापक जंगली बाबा इण्टर कालेज बलिया द्वारा माननीय उच्च न्यायालय
इलाहाबाद में याचिका संख्या - 36704 / 2014 इन्द्रजीत पाण्डेय बनाम उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य व अन्य योजित
किया गया जिसमे में पारित माननीय उच्च न्यायालय के आदेश दिनांक: 21.08.2025 का क्रियाशील अंश
निम्नवत है -
6. Consequent to the abovesaid interim orders, the petitioner was continued in
service and finally, on attaining the age of superarmuation, he retired on
31.03.2025. In view of the same, nothing survives with regard to prayer (a). As
far as prayer (b) is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner has brought
to the notice of Court that the respondents have not paid salary to the
petitioner from February, 2011 to 17.07.2014. Only respondents have released
salary after the interim order granted by this Court in the present writ petition.
Hence, petitioner is also entitled for salary for the said period.
7. In such circumstances, as the petitioner was continued and retired by virtue
of the interim order granted by this Court on 18.07.2014, this writ petition is
disposed of directing the petitioner to file claim/representation, within a period
of two weeks from today before the third respondent. On filing of such claim,
the third respondent may consider the same, if required by getting records
from the fourth respondent and pass appropriate order, within a period of two
months thereafter.
माननीय उच्च न्यायालय के उक्त आदेश के अनुपालन में याची द्वारा 24 बिन्दुओ पर प्रार्थना पत्र इस कार्यालय
को उपलब्ध कराया गया। अपने बिन्दुवार अभिकथन के प्रमाणन हेतु कोई साक्ष्य उपलब्ध नहीं कराया। अपने
प्रत्यावेदन के साथ याची द्वारा साक्ष्य के रूप में माननीय न्यायालय के आदेश एवं पेंशन पत्रावली के प्राप्ति की
प्रति मात्र संलग्न किया गया।
याची के विद्यालय जंगली बाबा इण्टर कालेज गडवार बलिया के प्रधानाचार्य द्वारा प्रकरण में अपने लिखित
अभिकथन दिनांक -13.08.2026 में यह उल्लेख किया है कि " श्री इन्द्रजीत पाण्डेय सहायक अध्यापक के
पद इस विद्यालय में कार्यरत थे जो दिनांक 31.03.2025 सेवानिवृत्त हो चुके है। श्री इन्द्रजीत पाण्डेय का वेतन
फरवरी 2011 से 17.07.2014 तक का नहीं हुआ है। विद्यालय में वर्ष 2010 से वर्ष 2014 के बीच की
उपस्थिति पंजिका उपलब्ध नहीं है। जिसके कारण श्री इन्द्रजीत पाण्डेय सहायक अध्यापक की उपस्थिति
प्रमाणित नहीं होती है अस्तु शासनादेश दिनांक 18.04.2019 के बिन्दु-7 के अनुसार इनकी उपस्थिति एवं
कार्य प्रमाणित नहीं होने की दशा में उक्त अवधि का अवशेष देय नहीं है।"
समीक्षा
1- जनहित याचिका संख्या 35090 / 2015 में पारित माननीय उच्च न्यायालय के आदेश के अनुपालन में जारी
शासनादेश दिनांक - 18.04.2019 में अवशेष देयकों के भुगतान हेतु निम्नवत बिन्दु निर्धारित है -
1- नियुक्ति के समय पद स्वीकृति एवं उपलब्ध रहा।
2- पद का विज्ञापन दो ऐसे समाचार पत्रो में किया गया हो, जिनका परिचालन राज्य में व्यापक स्तर
पर हो।
3- चयन हेतु विधिवत चयन समिति का गठन किया गया हो।
4- चयन प्रक्रिया विधि द्वारा स्थापित प्रक्रिया के अनुसार की गयी हो।
5- चयन का अनुमोदन विहित अधिकारी द्वारा किया गया हो।
6- जिस अभ्यर्थी का चयन किया गया है वह चयन तिथि को उस पद पर चयन हेतु न्यूनतम योग्यता
धारित करता हो।
7- अवशेष वेतन के प्रकरणों में यह सुनिश्चित किया जाय कि जिस अवधि के अवशेष वेतन की मांग
की जा रही है उस अवधि में संबन्धित द्वारा कार्य किया गया है।
2- याची द्वारा अपने उक्त अवशेष अवधि में कार्य किए जाने / उपस्थिति का कोई प्रमाण / साक्ष्य उपलब्ध नहीं
कराया गया और न ही संस्थाधिकारियों द्वारा ही याचीगण के उपस्थिति से संबन्धित कोई अभिलेख प्रस्तुत नहीं
किया गया।
3-
CAPL No. 4818 of 2026
6
माननीय उच्च न्यायालय में योजित जनहित याचिका संख्या-35090/2015 राजेश राय बनाम उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य
व अन्य में माननीय न्यायालय द्वारा पारित आदेश दिनांक 19.12.2017 के क्रम में निर्गत शासनादेश संख्या-
रिट -354/15-15-2019-1601 (31)/1992 दिनांक- 18.04.2021 द्वारा अवशेष भुगतान के संबंध में यह
व्यवस्था विहित की गयी है कि "अवशेष वेतन के प्रकरणो में यह सुनिश्चित किया जाय कि जिस अवधि के
अवशेष वेतन की मांग की जा रही है उस अवधि में संबन्धित द्वारा कार्य किया गया है।"
4- याची उक्त अवशेष अवधि में कार्य किए जाने। उपस्थिति का कोई प्रमाण / साक्ष्य उपलब्ध नहीं है अस्तु
कार्य प्रमाणन नहीं होने की दशा में NO WORK NO PAY का सिद्धांत लागू होगा।
निर्णय
उपरोक्त वर्णित तथ्यो के दृष्टिगत प्रकरण में सम्यक विचारोपरान्त माननीय उच्च न्यायालय इलाहाबाद मे योजित
याचिका संख्या -36704 / 2014 इन्द्रजीत पाण्डेय बनाम उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य व अन्य में पारित माननीय उच्च
न्यायालय के आदेश दिनांक : 21.08.2025 तथा योजित अवमानना वाद संख्या 4818 / 2026 इन्द्रजीत
पाण्डेय बनाम मनोज कुमार मिश्र जिला विद्यालय निरीक्षक बलिया में पारित माननीय उच्च न्यायालय के आदेश
दिनांक 28.07.2026 के अनुपालन में याची के अवशेष अवधि मे कार्य किए जाने / उपस्थिति का कोई प्रमाण
/ साक्ष्य उपलब्ध नहीं होने की दशा में NO WORK NO PAY का सिद्धांत के आधार पर प्रत्यावेदन
अस्वीकार / अमान्य करते हुए प्रकरण निस्तारित किया जाता है।
ह०अ०
(मनोज कुमार मिश्र)
जिला विद्यालय निरीक्षक
बलिया"
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the principle of "no work,
no pay" would not apply, particularly when the Court had made the applicant
entitled to the same. "Hence, petitioner is also entitled for salary for the said
period", would not apply. However, Ms. Bhavya Tiwari, learned Standing
Counsel has invited attention towards para 7 of the affidavit, which reads as
under:-
"7. That it is further submitted that the Principal, Jangali Baba Inter College, Gadwar
District Ballia submitted in statement on 13.08.2026 in writing that "श्री इन्द्रजीत पाण्डेय
सहायक अध्यापक के पद पर इस विद्यालय में कार्यरत थे जो दिनांक 31.03.2025 सेवानिवृत हो चुके है। श्री
इन्द्रजीत पाण्डेय का वेतन फरवरी 2011 से 17.07.2014 तक का नही हुआ है। विद्यालय में वर्ष 2010 से
वर्ष 2014 के बीच की उपस्थिति पंजिका उपलब्ध नहीं है। जिसके कारण श्री इन्द्रजीत पाण्डेय सहायक
अध्यापक की उपस्थिति प्रमाणित नहीं होती है अस्तु शासनादेश दिनांक 18.04.2019 के बिन्दु-7 के अनुसार
इनकी उपस्थिति एवं कार्य प्रमाणित नहीं होने की दशा में उक्त अवधि का अवशेष देय नहीं है।"
5. Since as per the opposite parties after summoning the records from the
Principal/ Committee of Management, it was found that the applicant had
not worked. Thus, dispute has arisen and it has become the bone of
contention between the parties. Thus, the appropriate remedy open for the
applicant is to take recourse to the proceedings under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India particularly when, the Court is not required to delve
into the merits of the matter.
6. Accordingly, the contempt application is consigned to record. Notices
discharged, if any, leaving it open to the applicant to question the said order
CAPL No. 4818 of 2026
7
before appropriate proceedings.
7. Any observation made in the present order is only confined to contempt
and would not in any manner whatsoever prejudice the right of the applicant
once he challenges the order before the writ forum.
September 18, 2026
N.S.Rathour
(Vikas Budhwar,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…