Allahabad High Court

SMT. NEETA RANIversusSHRI ANIL BHUSHAN CHATURVEDI, DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION (BASIC)

Decided: 17 September 2026
Bench: VIKAS BUDHWAR

Holding

The court held that the contempt application was not maintainable and consigned it to the record, allowing the applicant to seek other remedies.

Summary

The applicant, Neeta Rani, a teacher at a private recognised Montessori school, filed a contempt application alleging that the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Director of Education (Basic) had failed to comply with a 1998 order granting full salary and benefits to teaching and non‑teaching staff of such schools. The earlier order had been upheld by a special appeal in 2009 and a civil appeal in 2025 was dismissed, leaving the question of law open. The applicant, not a party to the original writ petitions, sought to enforce the benefits through contempt proceedings. The court examined whether contempt could be invoked against a non‑party and whether the earlier order was enforceable upon the applicant. Concluding that the contempt application was not maintainable, the court consigned it to the record and directed the applicant to pursue other legal remedies. The contempt petition was therefore dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether a person who was not a party to the original writ petition can be held in contempt for alleged non‑compliance of the court's order
Whether the 1998 order granting salary and benefits is enforceable against the applicant
Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a contempt proceeding in these circumstances

Subjects

contempt
civil contempt
implementation of court orders
grant-in-aid
salary benefits
education law
High Court Rules
impleadment
non‑teaching staff

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 6489 of 2026

Smt. Neeta Rani
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

Shri Anil Bhushan Chaturvedi, Director Of
Education (Basic) .....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mukesh Kumar Upadhyay
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :

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

1. The present contempt application has been preferred alleging non-
compliance of the order dated 16.11.1998 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition
No. 11031 of 1996, operative portion whereof is quoted hereinunder:

"In conclusion, both the writ petitions succeed and are hereby allowed.
Quashing the impugned order dated 29.3.1997, which curtails the grant
to the petitioners' School, the respondents State of U.P. as well as
Director of Education (Basic), Lucknow are commanded to pay full
salary, dearness allowance, other allowances, bonus, interim relief,
including the benefits of Selection Grade as well as retiral benefits, to the
teaching and non-teaching employees of Shri Maheshwar Montessori Bal
Mandir, Madar Gate, Aligarh as are admissible and being paid to the
teaching and non-teaching employees of Basic Schools run by the
Parishad, with immediate effect. Parties shall bear their own costs."

2. An intra-court appeal came to be preferred being Special Appeal No. 434
of 1999, State of U.P. and others Vs. Sushila Srivastava, which came to be
dismissed on 24.11.2009, order whereof is quoted hereinunder:

"This special appeal under Rule 5 of Chapter 8 of the High Court Rules
has been filed against the judgment dated 16.11.1998 passed in writ
petition no. 12826 of 1997. The question which fell for consideration
before the learned Single Judge was:
"Whether the teaching and non-teaching employees of the private
recognised primary schools are entitled to full salary, allowances and
other benefits as are admissible to their counterparts in the Basic schools
run by the Basic Shikchha Parishad, U.P.. The petitioners in the writ
CAPL No. 6489 of 2026
2

petition are the class 3 and class 4 employees of non-teaching staff of
recognised aided Montessori schools. It is clear that the salary of the
non-teaching staff are being paid from the amount released from the
public exchequer which is released as grant-in-aid by the State
Government.
We have perused the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge.
The learned Single Judge has relied upon the judgment of this Court in
writ petition no. 17846 of 1988 decided on 27.11.1991. By the said
judgment the same relief was granted to the employees of the institution
in which they were teaching & which was also grant-in-aid. Against that
order the State Government filed a special leave petition before the
Supreme Court challenging the order dated 27.11.1991 but the same was
dismissed on 14.1.1993. The State Government then moved a review
petition which too was dismissed.
The learned Single Judge after scrutiny of the Rules and Education
Code recorded a finding that the non-teaching employees of the private
recognised primary schools on grant-in-aid fall in the same class as of
Basic Schools run by the Basic Shikchha Parishad. The learned judge
allowed the writ petition and quashed the circular dated 29.3.1997. We
are in full agreement with the judgment passed by the learned Single
Judge & we therefore uphold the judgment of the Single Judge.
The appeal is devoid of merits & is hereby dismissed."

3. Against which a Civil Appeal No. 283 of 2014, State of Uttar Pradesh
through its Director of Education (Basic) and others Vs. Sushila Srivastava
and others came to be preferred in which on 11.09.2025, the following
orders have been passed:-

"1) After hearing learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants, we are not inclined to entertain the present appeal.
Accordingly, the civil appeal stands dismissed leaving the question of law
open.

2) However, we make it clear that the writ petitions pending before the
High Court be decided in accordance with law.

3) We further make it clear that we are not "entertaining the applications
for impleadment filed by the persons who were not parties before the Writ
Court. Accordingly, their applications for impleadment are dismissed
with the liberty to take recourse as permissible to them under the law
before High Court.

4) All other pending applications shall stand disposed of."
CAPL No. 6489 of 2026
3

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant happens to be
the teacher in the same institution but not a party in the writ petition, thus, in
view of the liberty so accorded by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the present
contempt application has been preferred.

5. On a pointed query being raised to the learned counsel for the applicant as
to what remedy has been availed, learned counsel for the applicant submits
that the applicant shall also seek relief / direction from the Court claiming
the benefits which have been accorded to his counterparts who were sailing
on the same boat.

6. In view of the above, the contempt application is consigned to record,
leaving it open to the applicant to take legal remedies which are available
and permissible under law.

September 18, 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…