The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Premnarayan Sharma

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:53883
1 WA-102-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL
th
ON THE 15 OF JULY, 2026
WRIT APPEAL No. 102 of 2026
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
PREMNARAYAN SHARMA
Appearance:
Dr. S. S. Chouhan, learned Government Advocate for the
appellant/State.
Shri Brij Mohan Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent.
WITH
CONTEMPT APPEAL No. 13 of 2025
HIRA SINGH JADHAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Ms.Vaishnavi Rao, learned counsel for the appellant
Dr.S.S.Chouhan, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER
Per: Vivek Rusia, Acting Chief Justice
The present matters arise out of a common set of facts and
proceedings about W.P. No.11730/2019. The State Government has
preferred the present Writ Appeal challenging the judgment dated
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 21-07-2026
19:00:19

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:53883
2 WA-102-2026
29.10.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition

filed by respondent No.1 was allowed, the order dated 21.04.2014 was set
aside and costs of Rs.1,00,000/- were imposed upon the State Government.
The connected Contempt Appeal has been preferred under Section 19 of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 by the then Engineer-in-Chief challenging the
interlocutory orders dated 17.03.2025 and 18.03.2025, whereby he was held
guilty of civil contempt and sentenced to undergo fifteen days' civil
imprisonment for the alleged non-compliance of the orders passed by the
learned Single Judge.
FACTS OF THE CASE
F.1 The dispute has its genesis in the service career of respondent
No.1 (original writ petitioner), who claims that he was regularised on the post
of Khalasi in the year 1996 and was entitled to continue on the said post with
all consequential service benefits. The respondent had earlier approached this
Court by filing W.P. No.24537/2003 challenging the action of the authorities
in depriving him of the benefits flowing from his regularisation and seeking
reinstatement on his original post. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ
petition directing the authorities to reinstate the respondent with
consequential benefits.
F.2 The State Government challenged the aforesaid judgment by
filing Writ Appeal No.558/2012, which came to be dismissed by the
Division Bench on 11.01.2013, thereby affirming the judgment passed by the
learned Single Judge. Since the authorities allegedly failed to comply with
the directions, respondent No.1 initiated Contempt Petition No.490/2012,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 21-07-2026
19:00:19

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:53883
3 WA-102-2026
which was disposed of on 28.02.2013. Thereafter, alleging continued non-

compliance, the respondent filed Contempt Petition No.1263/2013, which
ultimately came to be disposed of on 01.08.2018. According to the State
Government, during the said contempt proceedings the respondent himself
informed the Court that the directions issued by the writ Court had been
complied with and that he had received the benefits flowing from the earlier
judgment. Consequently, the contempt petition was closed.
F.3 Thereafter, the State Government issued an order dated
21.04.2014, whereby the respondent was adjusted/absorbed on the post of
Peon in Janpad Panchayat, Biaora. According to the respondent, the said
order was contrary to the earlier directions issued by this Court, as instead of
restoring him to his original post, he was shifted to another establishment
carrying different service conditions and depriving him of the benefits
attached to the post of 'Khalasi'. The State, on the other hand, consistently
maintained that the respondent had been adjusted strictly in accordance with
the applicable service rules, as the post of 'Khalasi' was merely a
contingency-paid post and not borne on the regular establishment.
F.4 Challenging the order dated 21.04.2014, the respondent
instituted W.P. No.11730/2019 under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. On 28.06.2019, the learned Single Judge granted interim protection by
staying the operation of the impugned order. During the course of hearing,
the learned Single Judge found that the State had not satisfactorily explained
how the order of regularization in favour of the respondent could be ignored
without first cancelling the same. Consequently, by order dated 01.04.2023,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 21-07-2026
19:00:19

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:53883
4 WA-102-2026
the State Government was directed to file an affidavit clarifying its stand.

F.5 Pursuant thereto, an affidavit dated 27.04.2023 was filed by Shri
Arvind Yadav, Joint Commissioner, Commissioner Office, Jabalpur, who
was acting as the Officer-in-Charge of the case. The affidavit sought to
justify the departmental action by explaining that the post of 'Khalasi' was
never a regular sanctioned post and that the respondent had already been
granted appropriate relief in compliance with the earlier judgments.
F.6 Thereafter, the writ petition was heard on several occasions and
various interlocutory orders were passed directing the personal appearance of
senior Government officers for explaining the departmental action. On
07.11.2024, an undertaking regarding compliance of the Court's directions
was recorded on behalf of the State authorities. According to the appellant in
the Contempt Appeal, the said undertaking was furnished by the Officer-in-
Charge of the litigation and not by the appellant personally.
F.7 Finding that the undertaking had not been complied with, the
learned Single Judge passed orders dated 17.03.2025 and 18.03.2025,
holding the then Engineer-in-Chief guilty of civil contempt and sentencing
him to undergo fifteen days' civil imprisonment. Aggrieved thereby, the
appellant preferred the connected Contempt Appeal.
F.8 During the pendency of the writ proceedings, the State
Government also challenged the repeated directions requiring personal
appearance of senior officers by filing Writ Appeal No.815/2025. By order
dated 22.03.2025, the Division Bench observed that instead of continuing
with interlocutory proceedings, the writ petition itself ought to be decided
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 21-07-2026
19:00:19

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:53883
5 WA-102-2026
finally and accordingly set aside the direction requiring the personal

appearance of the Principal Secretary.
F.9 Thereafter, the learned Single Judge finally heard W.P.
No.11730/2019 and by judgment dated 29.10.2025 allowed the writ petition,
quashed the order dated 21.04.2014, directed consequential reliefs in favour
of the respondent and imposed costs of Rs.1,00,000/- upon the State
Government. Aggrieved thereby, the State Government has preferred the
present Writ Appeal. Since both the Writ Appeal and the Contempt Appeal
arise out of the same proceedings and involve common questions of fact,
they are being considered together.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS
A.1 Learned Government Advocate appearing for the State and
learned for the appellant in the Contempt Appeal submit that the learned
Single Judge has committed a manifest error of law and fact in allowing the
writ petition and initiating coercive contempt proceedings against a senior
officer who was not even a party to the writ proceedings.
A.2 It is contended that the controversy had attained finality much
earlier in the previous round of litigation. The directions issued in W.P.
No.24537/2003 stood affirmed by the Division Bench in W.A. No.558/2012
and were duly implemented by the authorities. The respondent himself
acknowledged such compliance during the hearing of Contempt Petition
No.1263/2013, on the basis of which the contempt petition was disposed of.
Having accepted the compliance and obtained the consequential benefits, the
respondent was estopped from reopening the same controversy by filing
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 21-07-2026
19:00:19

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:53883
6 WA-102-2026
another writ petition.

A.3 Learned counsel submits that the order dated 21.04.2014 did not
violate any judicial direction but merely implemented the earlier orders in
accordance with the prevailing service rules. It is argued that the respondent
was adjusted in Janpad Panchayat because the post of Khalasi was not a
regular sanctioned post under the establishment but was a contingency-paid
post. Therefore, no legal right accrued in favour of the respondent to insist
upon reinstatement on a non-existent or non-sanctioned post.
A.4 It is further argued that the learned Single Judge failed to
appreciate the distinction between a sanctioned cadre post and a contingency-
paid post. The issue involved administrative and establishment matters which
were duly explained by the State through detailed returns and affidavits.
However, these aspects were overlooked while allowing the writ petition.
A.5 Learned counsel further submits that the imposition of costs of
Rs.1,00,000/- is wholly unwarranted, particularly when the State authorities
had acted bona fide and had consistently defended their action on legal
grounds. According to the appellants, the impugned judgment proceeds on an
erroneous appreciation of facts and deserves to be set aside.
A.6 So far as the Contempt Appeal is concerned, it is submitted that
the appellant was neither impleaded as a party nor issued any notice under
the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. The undertaking relied upon
by the learned Single Judge had been furnished by the Officer-in-Charge
conducting the litigation and not by the appellant personally. Therefore, the
essential ingredients of civil contempt, namely wilful and deliberate
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 21-07-2026
19:00:19

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:53883
7 WA-102-2026
disobedience of an order or undertaking, are wholly absent.

A.7 It is contended that contempt jurisdiction is quasi-criminal in
nature and punishment can be imposed only after strict compliance with the
mandatory procedure prescribed under the Contempt of Courts Act. The
learned Single Judge, without framing any charge, issuing notice or affording
adequate opportunity of hearing, proceeded to sentence the appellant to civil
imprisonment, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.
A.8 It is accordingly prayed that the judgment dated 29.10.2025
passed in W.P. No.11730/2019, as well as the contempt orders dated
17.03.2025 and 18.03.2025, be set aside.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
R.1 Learned counsel appearing for the respondent supports the
impugned judgment and submits that despite repeated judicial
pronouncements spanning over two decades, the State authorities
deliberately failed to restore the respondent to the post and status to which he
was legally entitled. According to the respondent, the order dated 21.04.2014
was not a genuine compliance of the earlier judgments but a device adopted
by the authorities to circumvent the binding directions of this Court.
R.2 It is submitted that the respondent had been regularized on the
post of Khalasi and the said order of regularization was never cancelled by
any competent authority. In the absence of cancellation of the regularization
order, the authorities could not have shifted the respondent to another
establishment on a different post carrying inferior service conditions.
R.3 Learned counsel further submits that the learned Single Judge
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 21-07-2026
19:00:19

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:53883
8 WA-102-2026
repeatedly granted opportunities to the State authorities to justify their

action. However, the affidavits filed on behalf of the State failed to explain
how the earlier judicial directions had been complied with or how the
respondent could legally be deprived of the benefits attached to his original
post.
R.4 It is contended that the repeated directions requiring personal
appearance of senior officers became necessary because the authorities failed
to place complete and correct facts before the Court and continued to evade
compliance. According to the respondent, the undertaking recorded before
the learned Single Judge was consciously violated, thereby justifying
invocation of contempt jurisdiction.
R.5 Learned counsel further submits that the observations made by
the Division Bench in W.A. No.815/2025 were confined only to the issue of
personal appearance of officers and did not affect the merits of the writ
petition. After considering the entire record, the learned Single Judge rightly
concluded that the departmental order dated 21.04.2014 was arbitrary,
contrary to the earlier judgments and liable to be quashed.
R.6 It is lastly submitted that the exemplary costs imposed upon the
State Government were fully justified considering the prolonged litigation,
repeated non-compliance of judicial directions and the unnecessary hardship
suffered by the respondent over several years. It is therefore prayed that both
the Writ Appeal and the Contempt Appeal be dismissed.
Appreciations & Conclusions:
C-1 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. So far as the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 21-07-2026
19:00:19

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:53883
9 WA-102-2026
order passed by the Single Bench on merit is concerned, the Government of

M.P. after the Cabinet decision has implemented the same by giving all the
benefits to the writ petitioner. Learned counsel is not disputing this fact of
implementing the impugned order passed by the writ court. Hence, this Writ
Appeal is dismissed as nothing survives to adjudicate. The cost amount has
also been paid to the writ petitioner.
C-2. Since in this case the decision was required to be taken by the
Cabinet of the Madhya Pradesh Government, we are of the opinion that the
appellant has wrongly been held guilty in this matter. The
contemnor/appellant was not competent to implement the order passed by the
Single Bench. Even otherwise, contempt jurisdiction is quasi-criminal in
nature and punishment can be imposed only after strict compliance with the
mandatory procedure prescribed under the Contempt of Courts Act. The
learned Single Judge, without framing any charge, issuing notice or affording
adequate opportunity of hearing, proceeded to sentence the appellant to civil
imprisonment, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. The
contempt orders dated 17.03.2025 and 18.03.2025, are hereby set aside.
C-3 Accordingly, Writ Appeal is dismissed and contempt appeal
stands disposed off.
(VIVEK RUSIA)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
(PRADEEP MITTAL)
JUDGE
RM

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 21-07-2026
19:00:19