Allahabad High Court
NAVEEN KUMAR SHRIVASTAVAversusUNION OF INDIA AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The High Court set aside the Tribunal’s order and revived the contempt petition, holding that the respondents must grant the ACP/MACP benefits notwithstanding the pending appeal.
Summary
The petitioner, Naveen Kumar Shrivastava, filed a writ petition challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal's (CAT) order that closed his contempt proceedings, alleging the respondents had not granted the full Assured Career Progression (ACP/MACP) benefits ordered on 12‑04‑2024. The High Court examined whether the CAT could lawfully dismiss the contempt petition on the ground that a pending, defective CBI appeal justified withholding benefits. It held that the Tribunal's interpretation of the phrase “subject to outcome of the pending appeal” was erroneous; the order required the respondents to grant the benefits notwithstanding the appeal’s pendency, with any reversal only if the appeal later succeeded. Citing the Supreme Court’s definition of “subject to” and the principle of restitution under CPC Section 144, the Court set aside the CAT’s order, revived the contempt petition, and directed the Tribunal to list it for further consideration. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal erred in closing the contempt petition on the basis of a pending defective CBI appeal.
- Interpretation of the phrase “subject to outcome of the pending appeal” in the Tribunal’s order.
- Whether the respondents are obligated to grant ACP/MACP benefits despite the pendency of the appeal.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 144
Subjects
- contempt of court
- Central Administrative Tribunal
- Assured Career Progression
- pending appeal
- interpretation of "subject to"
- civil service promotions
- judicial review
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 14677 of 2025
Naveen Kumar Shrivastava
…..Petitioner(s)
Versus
Union of India and 2 others
…..Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Manoj Kumar Srivastava, Pankaj
Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., Anupama Parashar
Chief Justice's Court
HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.
1. Heard Shri Pankaj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Ms. Anupama Parashar, learned counsel for the
respondents.
2. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated
24.07.2025 whereby the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad
Bench, Allahabad (‘the Tribunal’) has closed the proceedings of Civil
Misc. Contempt Petition No. 243 of 2024 filed by the petitioner alleging
non-compliance of order dated 12.04.2024 passed in Original
Application (‘OA’) No.1147 of 2018. Further relief has been claimed to
direct the respondents No.2 and 3 to comply the order dated 12.04.2024
passed in the OA.
2
WRIA No. - 14677 of 2025
3. The petitioner had filed the OA claiming multiple reliefs inter alia
for issuance of a direction to the respondents to grant Assured Career
Progression (‘ACP’)/Modified Assured Career Progression (‘MACP’)
from the date he became entitled as per Rules, with all consequential
benefits. The same was allowed by the Tribunal by order 12.04.2024.
4. When the benefits determined and granted by the Tribunal in the
order dated 12.04.2024 were not released in favour of the petitioner, he
filed aforesaid contempt application, the proceeding thereof have been
closed by the Tribunal on the ground that since the CBI Appeal No.141
of 2013 was still pending consideration and the entire payment had been
made subject to outcome of the said proceedings, the order dated
03.03.2025 passed by the respondents was in strict compliance of the
order passed by the Tribunal.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made submissions that the
petitioner was accorded only the first ACP w.e.f. 26.05.2007 and no
indication was made regarding grant of 2nd and 3rd ACP, to which he was
entitled.
6. After considering the submissions made by counsel for the
petitioner at first hearing of the matter, this Court passed following order
on 25.09.2025:-
“1. It is inter alia submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the
Tribunal was not justified in dismissing the contempt petition only
on account of the fact that the respondents had passed order dated
03.03.2025. Submissions have been made that the order dated
12.04.2024 passed in Original Application filed by the petitioner
was very specific directing the respondents to consider the grant
of ACP/MACP to the petitioner from the date he was entitled for
the same as per rules with all consequential benefits, however, by
the order dated 03.03.2025, he has only been accorded the first
ACP with effect from 26.05.2007 and no indication has been made
regarding the grant of second and third ACP to which he was
entitled.
2. Counsel for the respondents prays for time to obtain
instructions in the matter.
3. Time prayed for is allowed.
4. Needful may be done before the next date.
3
WRIA No. - 14677 of 2025
5. List on 28.10.2025, as fresh.”
7. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned on various dates granting
further time to the respondents to answer the specific query made in the
order dated 25.09.2025 and, lastly, following order was passed on
11.03.2026:-
“1. Learned A.S.G.I. pursuant to the order dated 13.02.2026 submits
that instructions have been received regarding the matter being
considered by the respondents in consultation with the Department of
Personnel and Training (DoPT) and Department of Legal Affairs and
prays for time to place on record the outcome of the said
consideration.
2. Needful may be done before the next date.
3. List the petition on 15.04.2026, as fresh. “
8. Today when the matter was taken up, learned counsel for the
respondents has placed instructions dated 28.04.2026 issued by the
Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Prayagraj indicating that the
Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) had advised not to accept
grant of promotion to the petitioner till final decision on CBI Appeal by
the Lucknow Bench of Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
and, hence, the administrative machinery has been advised to wait for
final decision of the High Court on the appeal before taking any decision
on regularizing the promotion of the petitioner.
9. Learned counsel for the respondents has advanced arguments on
the same lines on which instructions have been received by her and it is
contended that since the Tribunal, in its order dated 12.04.2024, had
clearly observed that the petitioner would be entitled for the reliefs
subject to final outcome of pending CBI appeal, no error has been
committed by the Tribunal in closing the proceedings of contempt
application and, therefore, no interference is warranted in the order
impugned.
10. We have considered the submissions made and perused the
material available on record.
4
WRIA No. - 14677 of 2025
11. Relevant paragraphs of the order 12.04.2024 passed by the
Tribunal allowing the O.A. read as under:-
“10. The aforesaid appeal which is pending as “Defective” since
2013 is clearly not the fault of the applicant and there is no
justification why the same should stand as a hindrance in the way
of his career advancement especially when he has been exonerated
of all the charges, even if the respondents say it is from the
departmental angle only. It is egregiously wrong on the part of the
respondents to deny the applicant the due promotion after he has
been cleared from the vigilance angle, for such a long time due to
the pendency of an appeal which has not even been admitted till
date. Since the appeal filed by the CBI against the CBI Court order
exonerating the applicant from all the charges is pending since
2013 as 'Defective' and there is no stay order, we cannot but say
that the applicant is undergoing undue harassment by being
deprived of the due promotion till date.
11. In view of the above facts and discussions and also the various
case laws relied upon by the applicant, we are of the considered
opinion that a case is made out in favour of the applicant for
providing him further promotions. As contended in his rejoinder,
the applicant has mentioned that provisional promotion granted to
him after opening the sealed cover is not in accordance with the
DoPT circular dated 19.01.2017 which is not correct. The appeal
filed by the CBI is still categorized as 'Defective' and it can be
safely interpreted that no appeal has been filed till date. Even if it is
presumed that the defective appeal may be corrected and an
outcome of appeal may come in due course, taking into account the
judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of
Shyamveer Upadhyay vs. State of U.P. and 3 others (supra) , as well
as the DoPT circular dated 19.01.2017, the applicant is entitled for
the relief claimed in 8 (A) 8 (B) and 8 (C), subject to the outcome
of the pending appeal. Hence, the impugned order dated
20.03.2018 is hereby quashed to the extent of 'provisional
promotion in terms of DoPT OM No. 11012/6/2016-Estt.A-III
dated 19.01.2017 w.e.f. the date he assumes charge of the post" and
the impugned order dated 27/28.08.2018 is also set aside and the
respondents are directed to grant the applicant regular promotions
which are due to him, subject to the outcome of the said defective
appeal. The respondents are also directed to consider the grant of
ACP/ MACP to the applicant from the date he is entitled for the
same as per the rules with all the consequential benefits. The said
exercise should be completed within a period of three months from
the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
Thus, the O.A. stands allowed to the extent discussed in the above
paragraph. All the associated M.As. also stand disposed of. No
costs.”
12. A bare perusal of the abovementioned order indicates that the
Tribunal has taken note of the fact that against acquittal of the petitioner,
5
WRIA No. - 14677 of 2025
appeal filed by the CBI was categorized as 'defective' and that it can be
safely interpreted that no appeal has been filed till today. The Tribunal
has further observed that even if it is presumed that the defective appeal
may be corrected and outcome may come in due course, taking into
account the judgment in Writ A No.10625 of 2020 (Shyamveer
Upadhyay vs. State of U.P. and 3 others), decided on 09.12.2020, as well
as the DoPT circular dated 19.01.2017, the petitioner is held entitled for
the relief claimed in 8 (A) 8 (B) and 8 (C) therein, subject to the
outcome of the pending appeal. Further, the respondents were directed to
grant the petitioner regular promotions which are due to him, 'subject to
the outcome of the said defective appeal' and also to consider the grant
of ACP/ MACP to the applicant from the date he is entitled for the same
as per rules with all the consequential benefits.
13. In our opinion, the directions issued by the Tribunal were plain,
simple and unambiguous and the respondents were bound to accord
benefits granted by the Tribunal in favour of the petitioner. The mere fact
that CBI appeal was lying defective since 2013 and the relief granted to
the petitioner has been made ‘subject to outcome of the pending appeal’,
would not empower the respondents to withhold the benefits till final
decision in the appeal. As a matter of fact, the respondents, in the
compliance affidavit filed before the Tribunal and also in the instructions
furnished before this Court, have treated the pendency of defective CBI
appeal as an interim order operative against grant/release of benefits
awarded by the Tribunal and the words “subject to outcome of the
appeal” have been clearly misunderstood and misinterpreted by them.
Similarly, the Tribunal has also erred in taking the same view while
consigning the contempt application to records and closing the
proceedings.
14. In our opinion, the meaning and import of the directions issued by
the Tribunal in relation to defective CBI Appeal is that benefits should
be released/granted in favour of the petitioner, however, in case the
defect in the appeal stands removed and, ultimately, the appeal is
6
WRIA No. - 14677 of 2025
allowed setting aside acquittal of the petitioner, necessary consequences
would follow and as per circumstances post the decision, the principle
of restitution as per Section 144 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 may also
apply.
15. In Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu & Another : JT
2004 (1) SC 289, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had occasion to interpret
the meaning of “subject to” and it was observed as under:-
“91. Furthermore, the expression ‘subject to' must be given effect to.
92. In Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition at page 1278 the expression
‘Subject to’ has been defined as under :
"Liable, subordinate, subservient, inferior, obedient to;
governed or affected by; provided that; provided, answerable
for. Homan v. Employers Reinsurance Corporation, 345 Mo.
650, 136 S.W. 2d 289, 302"
93. The word "Determination" must also be given its full effect to, which pre-
supposes application of mind and expression of the conclusion. It connotes the
official determination and not a mere opinion of finding.
94. In Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyar, Second Edition, it is stated:
"Determination or order. The expression "determination"
signifies an effective expression of opinion which ends a
controversy or a dispute by some authority to whom it is
submitted under a valid law for disposal. The expression
"order" must have also a similar meaning, except that it need
not operate to end the dispute, Determination or order must
be judicial or quasi-judicial. Jaswant Sugar Mills v. Lakshmi
Chand, : AIR 1963 SC 677, 680 [Constitution of India Article
136]"
95. In Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, it is stated:
"A "determination" is a "final judgment" for purposes of
appeal when the trial court has completed its adjudication of
the rights of the parties in the action. Thomas Van Dyken Joint
Venture v. Van Dyken, 90 Wis. 236, 279 N.W. 2d 459, 463"
16. In the opinion of the Court word “determination” which has been
termed as a final judgment by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Ashok Leyland Ltd. (supra), would also cover the word “outcome” used
by the Tribunal in the order allowing the OA and, hence, we are of the
view that mere pendency of defective CBI Appeal would not stop
flowing of benefits in favour of the petitioner.
7
WRIA No. - 14677 of 2025
17. In view of the above, we deem it appropriate to set aside the order
impugned and revive the contempt petition on record of the Tribunal for
further consideration in the light of observations made hereinabove.
18. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.
19. The order dated 25.07.2025 passed by the Tribunal is hereby set
aside.
20. Civil Misc. Contempt Petition No.243 of 2024 is restored on the
file of the Tribunal and the same shall be listed before the Tribunal in
third week of May, 2026 on an application filed by the petitioner along
with a copy of this order in the Registry of the Tribunal.
(Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ)
April 29, 2026
Jyotsana
Digitally signed by :-
JYOTSANA SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…