SMT. YOGESH MISHRAversusSHRI ANIL BHUSHAN CHATURVEDI DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION (BASIC), EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, DIRECTORATE, LUCK

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
           CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 6491 of 2026

Smt. Yogesh Mishra
                                                                     .....Applicant(s)
                                       Versus


Shri Anil Bhushan Chaturvedi Director Of
Education (Basic), Education Department,
Directorate, Lucknow (U.P.)                                              .....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
                                                               CAPL No. 6491 of 2026
                                   2


     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
     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
                                                                                                     CAPL No. 6491 of 2026
                                                                         3


                                           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."

                                    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.



                                                                                                    (Vikas Budhwar,J.)
                                    September 18, 2026
                                    Ashu




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