Allahabad High Court

SUMAN KUMARIversusSMT. AASHA CHAUDHARY, DISTRICT BASIC EDUCATION OFFICER

Decided: 29 September 2026
Bench: VIKAS BUDHWAR

Holding

The Court held that substantial compliance with the reinstatement order was evident and therefore the contempt petition was dismissed.

Summary

The High Court entertained a contempt petition filed by Suman Kumari alleging non‑compliance with its order dated 22 July 2026, which had set aside a termination order and directed her reinstatement as an Assistant Teacher. The order was issued in an intra‑court appeal (Special Appeal No. 788/2026) that relied on a Supreme Court judgment in Rajesh Kumar Chaturvedi et al. v. State of U.P. & Ors., which mandated that termination orders be stayed and that employees be given a hearing before any final decision. After the High Court’s order, the applicant was reinstated but her salary and benefits were made conditional on actual work, leading her counsel to argue that her regular appointment had been converted into a temporary/contractual one. The opposite party contended that the appointment remained regular and that the conditional payment did not alter her status. The Court observed that substantial compliance with the reinstatement order had been achieved and therefore consigned the contempt application to the record, effectively dismissing it. The judgment reaffirmed the binding effect of the Supreme Court’s directions on service matters and the requirement of natural‑justice procedures before termination.

Issues considered

Whether the respondent complied with the High Court’s order of reinstatement and the Supreme Court’s directions in Rajesh Kumar Chaturvedi et al. v. State of U.P.
Whether the conditional payment of salary and benefits amounts to a conversion of a regular appointment into a temporary/contractual one
Whether the alleged non‑compliance constitutes contempt of court

Legislation cited

1973 Act

Subjects

contempt of court
reinstatement
service termination
temporary appointment
regular appointment
Supreme Court precedent
natural justice
substantial compliance

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 6125 of 2026

Suman Kumari
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

Smt. Aasha Chaudhary, District Basic Education
Officer .....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Harish Chandra Pratap, Ram Nath Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :

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
CAPL No. 6125 of 2026
2

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
3

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
(Vikas Budhwar,J.)

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…