AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 501
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... alleged contemnor is against an interim order passed by the High Court directing listing of the contempt petition for framing of charges. The short facts leading to filing of the contempt petition, followed by the direction as indicated hereinabove are as follows. 3. The respondents were appointed as lecturers in a private college sometime in the year 1993. We are informed that the college was receiving certain financial assistance from the State and this ended with the advent of the Government policy dated 21.08.2000 not to grant and financial assistance to non-aided Government colleges. Challenging this policy by invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, respondents sought directions for sancti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng the impugned order dated 25.03.2011 passed by the Director of Higher Education, opposite party no. 2 with consequential benefits. A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the respondents to reconsider petitioners' claim with regard to payment of the regular salary in the light of observations made hereinbaove and pass a speaking and reasoned order expeditiously say, within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order and communicate decision. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition allowed." 5. Following the above referred direction to reconsider the respondents claim, the authorities again passed an order on 01.07.2013, yet again reiterating their position as u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tition and yet again the High Court by its order dated 14.07.2023 passed the following order; Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and is allowed. A writ of certiorari is issued quashing the order dated 01.07.2013, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition. The matter is remitted to the respondent no. 1 i.e. Principal Secretary, Higher Education, U.P, Lucknow for passing a fresh order keeping in view the judgment and order dated 06.03.2013 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1035 (SB) of 2011 as well as the discussions made above. Let such an order be passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order." 7. In the meanwhile, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....since 1993, thereafter this faculty is being run under self-financed scheme. The college management decides under which scheme the various functions of the college will be operated under various schemes run by the Uttar Pradesh government. 8. The new appointments of the petitioners Dr. Arvind Kumar Singh, Dr. Aditya Bahadur Singh, Dr. Manvendra Pratap Singh and Dr. Ajay Kumar Singh have been made in the college by the management after getting approval from the university. For these new appointments, the approval of the university is given only after the petitioners apply for the posts advertised by the college and are successful in the interview organized by the college/university. At present, all these teachers are receiving salar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed the order impugned before us directing listing of the contempt case for framing of charges. 13. Facts that we have recounted till now reveal a sad reflection, not our laws, but the way we practice our laws and work our judicial remedies. We are not be mistaken as sermonising, for such episodic disposal could feature even in the practice of Supreme Court. Our endeavour is to ensure that we take notice of it and adopt course correction. 14. There is no doubt about the fact that the "consider jurisprudence", so routinely adopted these days and if we may use the expression - to throw the ball out of the Court, is counterproductive and harms the system. 15. When a claim of a right is legal and justified, relief must follow. The Cons....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... invoke contempt jurisdiction for quick relief, even when appealable orders have already been passed. In this very case, there is a detailed order of the government dated 09.05.2025, and this has remained unchallenged. Though the High Court passed the order impugned before us on 28.05.2025, there is no reference to the decision of the government dated 09.05.2025. It is necessary for the respondents to challenge the said order. 18. The present litigation has spanned for over 16 years. It is therefore necessary to pass the following order; a) We permit the respondents to file a writ petition against the order dated 09.05.2025. The said writ petition will be taken up along with the contempt proceedings pending before the High Court....