DINESH KUMAR MISHRA AND ANOTHERversusUNION OF INDIA AND 4 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                        WRIT - A No. - 14682 of 2025

Dinesh Kumar Mishra and another
                                                             .....Petitioner(s)
                                   Versus

Union of India and 4 others
                                                           .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)         : Kamla Kant Mishra, Varun Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s)         : S.P. Singh (A.S.G.I.), Ashish Kumar

Chief Justice's Court
            HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE
            HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

1. This petition is directed against order dated 29.04.2025, passed by
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad ('Tribunal')
in Civil Misc. Execution Application No. 1188 of 2019 in Original
Application ('OA') No. 582 of 2009.

2. The Execution Application under Section 27 of the Administrative
Tribunals Act, 1985 ('Act') was filed for execution of order dated
12.10.2012 passed in OA No. 582 of 2009, which was modified by this
Court in Writ - A No. 40638 of 2013.

3. The matter has got a chequered history. The petitioners were appointed
as Extra Departmental Agents (Stamp Vendors) in the year 1991 and
1995. The OA No. 149 of 2006 was filed which was disposed of on
28.01.2009 with the direction to the respondents to pass a reasoned and
speaking order. Pursuant to the order of the Tribunal, an order dated
14.05.2009 was passed rejecting the claim of the petitioners, which led to
filing of OA No. 582 of 2009. The OA was decided by order dated
12.10.2012, whereby the order impugned dated 14.05.2009 was quashed
and set aside and certain directions were given to prepare the seniority list
of the petitioners and similarly situated substitutes and it was directed that
in case, the respondents decide to regularize such persons, they shall
follow the seniority list for the purpose of regularization. Further
directions were given that on preparation of such seniority list, the
petitioners be informed of their seniority position and the likelihood of
                                                              WRIA No. 14682 of 2025
                                     2


their being absorbed on regular basis. The said order was challenged by
filing Writ - A No. 40638 of 2013, which came to be disposed of on
30.07.2013 with the following observations :

     "We, therefore, find no infirmity in the said order of the Tribunal.
     However, the last line of paragraph 9, where the Tribunal has observed
     that on preparation of such 'seniority list', the respondents shall be
     informed of their seniority list and the likelihood of their being absorbed
     on regular basis, is uncalled for. Only when the petitioners decide to
     regularize the services of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 such a question may
     arise. Therefore, that part of the order is set aside.

     With the above modification in the impugned order, the writ petition is
     disposed of. However, the 'seniority list' of the substitutes which is
     directed to be prepared in the impugned order, shall be circulated amongst
     the substitutes."

4. When the order was purportedly not complied with, contempt petition
was filed, wherein CCP No. 68 of 2013 came to be decided with the
following observations :

     "10. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the
     parties as well as the materials on record. It is clear that the respondents
     have taken the consistent stand from the beginning of this Contempt case
     that the order dated 12.10.2012 of this Tribunal cannot be implemented as
     there is no provisions under the rules to prepare the seniority list of the
     substitute. One part of the order has already been set aside by the Hon'ble
     Allahabad High Court vide order dated 30.07.2013 in Writ Petition No.
     40638 of 2013 as discussed in para 2 of this order. Hence, we are of the
     view that although the order dated 12.10.2012 as modified by Hon'ble
     High Court vide order dated 30.07.2013 has not been implemented, it is
     not deliberate or wilful violation of the order of this Tribunal. Therefore,
     following the legal principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
     case of Sudhir Vasudeva (supra) as discussed in para 7 above the
     respondents cannot be held to be liable under the Contempt of Court Act,
     1971. Therefore, the present contempt petition is dismissed. Notices
     issued to the respondents are discharged."
                                                       WRIA No. 14682 of 2025
                               3


5. The petitioners filed Writ - A No. 1651 of 2018, which came to be
dismissed on 14.08.2018, wherein counsel for the petitioner himself stated
that remedy by way of execution under Section 27 of the Act was
available based on which the petition was dismissed. Whereafter the
present execution proceedings were filed, which remained pending for
long and ultimately, came to be dismissed by the order impugned,
wherein the Tribunal noticed that office memorandum dated 03.02.2015
was appended as Annexure No. CA-3, whereby seniority list of substitute
of Gramin Dak Sevak in respect of Allahabad Division was produced and
consequently, found that the execution application was liable to be
dismissed.

6. Counsel for the petitioner made submissions that the Tribunal was not
justified in rejecting the execution application inasmuch as once the
Tribunal, in its order dated 12.10.2012, had quashed and set aside order
dated 14.05.2009, by which the engagement of the petitioners as
substitutes was put to an end, as a natural consequence, the respondents
were required to re-engage the petitioners and as they have not been re-
engaged, the execution application could not have been dismissed.
Further submissions were made that the plea raised by the respondents
regarding there being no provision for engaging the substitutes is ex-facie
incorrect as after passing of the order, large number of substitutes were
engaged and therefore, the plea raised in this regard deserves to be
discarded and the respondents be directed to implement the order passed
in OA in its letter and spirit.

7. Counsel for the respondents, with reference to the counter affidavit,
made submissions that the order impugned in the OA, which was passed
on the representation made by the petitioners, clearly indicated dispensing
with the engagement of the petitioners and requiring the regularly
appointed Gramin Dak Sevak (Stamp Vendors) to join at the places where
the petitioners were working.

8. Further, in the order impugned before the Tribunal, there was no
discussion worth the name qua the fact of dispensing with the engagement
of the petitioners and the discussion only centered around issuance of
seniority list and directions, in this regard only, were issued and there was
                                                                WRIA No. 14682 of 2025
                                   4


no direction for re-engagement. The directions issued by the Tribunal as
modified by the High Court were duly implemented and therefore, the
contempt petition and the execution application have rightly been
dismissed.

9. We have considered the submissions made and have perused the
material available on record.

10. It is well settled that the executing court cannot go beyond the decree,
which has been passed. In the present case, in the OA, following direction
was passed:

     "9. In view of the above, the OA is allowed. Impugned order dated 14th
     May 2009 is quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to prepare
     the seniority lists of the applicants and similarly situated substitutes and
     in case they decide to regularize such persons, they shall follow the
     seniority list for the purpose of regularization. On preparation of such
     seniority lists, the applicants be informed of their seniority position and
     the likelihood of their being absorbed on regular basis.

     10. Under the circumstances that shall be no orders as to costs."

which has been modified by this Court as quoted hereinbefore.

11. A perusal of the above would reveal that the direction only pertains to
the issuance of seniority list and nothing more. Even in the judgment of
the Tribunal, there has been no discussion examining the validity of
dispensing with the engagement of the petitioners.

12. As such, during course of the contempt proceedings, though the
Tribunal, at one stage, directed the respondents to re-engage the
petitioners, when ultimately the engagement did not take place, the
contempt petition was dismissed though it was observed that the order has
not been implemented, which observations were ipse dixit as there was no
elaboration qua the said observations. In the execution application, the
Tribunal, taking into consideration that the seniority list has been
appended along with the counter affidavit, has rejected the same.

13. In that view of the matter, we do not find that the Tribunal committed
                                                                                           WRIA No. 14682 of 2025
                                                                   5


                                    any error in dismissing the execution application as the claim made
                                    seeking re-engagement pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal did
                                    not arise at all.

                                    14. So far as the submissions made regarding the respondents re-
                                    engaging/appointing large number of persons after disengaging the
                                    petitioners is concerned, the said action, even if factually correct, cannot
                                    be used for seeking execution of the order in the manner sought by the
                                    petitioners. The said action, if at all, would give independent cause to the
                                    petitioners as the same has nothing to do with the present proceedings.

                                    15. Consequently, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order
                                    impugned.

                                    16. The petition has no substance, the same is, therefore, dismissed.



                                                                 (Kshitij Shailendra,J.) (Arun Bhansali,CJ.)
                                    March 23, 2026
                                    Mukesh Pal




Digitally signed by :-
MUKESH PAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad