Allahabad High Court

PRADEEP KUMAR GUPTAversusSHRI MIRZA FAHIM AND ANOTHER

Decided: 30 September 2026
Bench: VIKAS BUDHWAR

Holding

Substantial compliance with the salary payment order was found, and the contempt application was consigned to the record.

Summary

The petitioner, Pradeep Kumar Gupta, alleged that the respondents stopped paying his salary in March 2026 despite a 12 July 2017 order directing regular payment following a writ petition for regularisation of his services. The High Court examined whether this non‑payment constituted contempt of the earlier order and whether the respondents could rely on alleged financial paucity to withhold salary. The court noted that the respondents had paid salary arrears up to August 2026 on 23 September 2026 and that financial shortage is not a legally tenable ground, citing Supreme Court precedents. It held that substantial compliance had been achieved and that the contempt application could not be dismissed outright. Consequently, the contempt petition was consigned to the record, allowing the petitioner to approach the court again if further non‑payment occurs. The decision reaffirmed the enforceability of court orders concerning employment remuneration.

Issues considered

Whether the respondents' failure to pay the petitioner's salary after March 2026 amounts to contempt of the 12 July 2017 order.
Whether financial paucity is a valid defence for withholding salary under the court's direction.
Whether payment of salary arrears up to August 2026 constitutes sufficient compliance to discharge contempt.

Subjects

contempt of court
salary payment
order compliance
financial paucity
higher education employment
writ petition
substantial compliance

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 5053 of 2026

Pradeep Kumar Gupta
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

Shri Mirza Fahim And Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rahul Kumar, Santosh Kumar
Upadhyay, Vinod Kumar Upadhyay
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Manas Singh, Pooja Singh

Court No. - 53
HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

1. 2nd compliance affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party nos. 1 and 2
are taken on record.

2. On 01.09.2026, this Court proceeded to pass the following order:-

"1. The present contempt petition has been preferred alleging non-
compliance of the order dated 12.07.2017 passed in Writ A No.29739 of
2017, the order whereof is quoted hereinunder:
"The petitioner is working in the institution in question, namely, Sri
Agarsen Post Graduate College, Mauranipur, Jhansi since 1999 on daily
wages basis. Previously, he preferred a writ petition, being Writ-A No.
56274 of 2016, Pradeep Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. and others, for a
direction upon the respondents to regularize his services. This Court vide
its order dated 29th November, 2016 directed the Regional Higher
Education Officer, the third respondent therein, to consider the grievance
of the petitioner. In compliance thereof, the Regional Higher Education
Officer has rejected the claim of the petitioner for regularisation on the
ground that he was working under the self-financing scheme and no
paper with regard to his functioning is available.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the
comments submitted by the Principal of the institution to the Regional
Higher Education Officer dated 29th March, 2017, wherein she has
categorically stated that the petitioner is working in the institution since
1999 and the college has never shown him that he has worked under the
CAPL No. 5053 of 2026
2

self-financing scheme. It was also mentioned that he was paid the
minimum wages and has been working in the sport section and library of
the institution as a Class-IV employee. Thus, it is submitted that the
finding recorded by the Regional Higher Education Officer that the
petitioner was working in the self-financing scheme is a perverse finding.
The matter needs consideration. The petitioner has made out a prima
facie case.
Learned Standing Counsel appears for the first and third respondents. Sri
Neeraj Tiwari, learned Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf of the
second respondent.
Issue notice to the fourth and fifth respondents returnable on 11th
September, 2017.
Steps be taken within ten days.
Till the next date of listing the impugned orders dated 07th April, 2017
and 30th May, 2017 shall be kept in abeyance, the petitioner shall
continue in the institution and his salary shall be paid regularly."
2. This Court on 03.08.2026 proceeded to pass the following orders:
"1. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that despite the
existence of the order dated 12.07.2017, passed in Writ-A No. 29739 of
2017, the opposite party has stopped the salary of the petitioner since
March 2026, though the order of the writ Court had stayed the effect and
the operation of the order dated 07.04.2017 and 30.05.2017, requiring
the opposite party to pay salary regularly.
2. Prima facie, a case of contempt is made out.
3. Issue notice to the opposite parties. Steps to be taken by today.
4. Put up this case on 27.08.2026, as fresh."
3. Counter affidavit has been filed by opposite party nos. 1 and 2, the
allegation of the applicant is that he has not been paid salary since
March, 2026.
4. The counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submits that the elections have
been held on 23.08.2026 and while inviting attention towards the para-10
of the counter affidavit filed by the opposite party no. 1 who happens to
be the Principal, a narrative has been set up that payments will be made
shortly.
5. Be that as it may be, the opposite parties are in contempt.
6. Confronted with the said situation, learned counsel for the opposite
CAPL No. 5053 of 2026
3

parties seek time till 17.09.2026.
7. Put up this case on 17.09.2026 as fresh."

3. Thereafter, on 17.09.2026, following order has been passed:-

"Two affidavits, filed today, are taken on record.
According to the opposite party, valid committee stands approved on
16.09.2026.
Put up this case on 01.10.2026 as fresh, by which time, the order of the
writ court be complied with."

4. Today, affidavits have been filed on behalf of the opposite party nos. 1
and 2, in which in paragraph no. 3, it has been asserted that arrears of salary
have been paid to the applicant till August, 2026 on 23.09.2026.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that a direction be issued to the
opposite parties not to withhold any salary of the applicant on account of
paucity of funds.

6. In the opinion of the Court, since the salary till August, 2026 has been
paid on 23.09.2026 and for the month of September onwards, the salary is to
be paid in accordance with law and the ground of financial paucity for not
making payment is not acceptable and is not legally tenable, in view of the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dharam Singh Vs. State of U.P.:
2025 SCC Online SC 1735 & State of West Bengal Vs. Confederation of
State Government Employees, West Bengal: 2026 INSC 123.

7. Since there has been substantial compliance, the contempt application is
consigned to record leaving it open to the applicant to again approach as
and when such situation arises.

(Vikas Budhwar,J.)
October 1, 2026
Rajesh

Digitally signed by :-
RAJESH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…