Allahabad High Court
PARMANAND DUBEYversusB.L. CHAURASIYA, DEPUTYD DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL
Holding
The contempt application is dismissed as infructuous because the respondent has fully complied with the writ order by paying the prescribed amount.
Summary
The Allahabad High Court, while hearing Contempt Application No. 9406 of 2023 filed by Parmanand Dubey, referred to its earlier order dated 04.04.2023 in Writ‑A No. 27395 of 2009 which had directed the respondent university to pay the petitioner salary for the period he served as Officiating Principal. The earlier order was based on the striking down of Statute 12.22 of Sampurnanand Sanskrit University by a Service Bench judgment and a Full Bench decision in Dr. Jai Prakash Narayan Singh v. State of U.P. The State side later informed the Court that a sum of Rs. 55,94,117/- had been paid to the petitioner, thereby complying with the writ order. On this basis, the Court held that the contempt application was rendered infructuous. Consequently, the contempt application was dismissed. The judgment was delivered on 14 May 2026 by Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal.
Issues considered
- Whether the contempt application filed by the petitioner remains maintainable after the respondent has complied with the writ order by paying the stipulated amount.
Subjects
- contempt
- writ of mandamus
- salary entitlement
- officiating principal
- order compliance
- high court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 9406 of 2023
Parmanand Dubey
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
B.L. Chaurasiya, Deputyd Director Of Education
And Another .....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Purushottam Mani Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :
Court No. - 9
HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.
1. The writ Court on 04.04.2023 while allowing Writ-A No. 27395 of 2009
passed the following order:-
"1. Heard Sri A.C. Tiwari, Sri N.L. Pandey, Sri J.A. Azmi and Sri
Akhilesh Kumar Singh learned counsel for petitioner and Sri V.B. Mishra,
learned counsel for respondent-University in respective petitions.
2. In the writ petition, only question for consideration is whether
petitioner, while working as Officiating Principal, entitled to salary for
post of Principal. Relying on Statute 12.22 of the first Statute of
Sampurnanand Sanskrit University, his salary as Officiating Principal
was denied.
3. It is informed that aforesaid provision has been struck down by a
learned Single Judge in Service Bench No. 1590 of 2008, Dr.
Bramhanand Shukla Vs. State of U.P. through Secretary, High Education
decided on 29.5.2019 relying upon a Full Bench Judgment of this Court
in Dr. Jai Prakash Narayan Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, [2014 (8)
ADJ 617 (FB)]
4. Sri V. B. Mishra, learned counsel for University could not dispute
aforesaid facts.
5. Thus, in view of aforesaid decisions and for the reasons given therein,
this writ petition is allowed.
CAPL No. 9406 of 2023
2
6. The petitioner shall be entitled for salary for the period he worked as
Officiating Principal and it shall be paid by respondents expeditiously.
7. The entire exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible
preferably within a period of four months from the date of production of
certified copy of this order."
2. Today, instructions have come from the State side, which are taken on
record.
3. In the instructions, it has been stated that an amount of Rs. 55,94,117/- has
been paid to the applicant complying the order of the writ Court.
4. In view of said fact, as the amount has been paid to the applicant, the
present contempt application is rendered infructuous and stands dismissed.
(Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.)
May 14, 2026
A. V. Singh
Digitally signed by :-
AJAY VIKRAM SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…