Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:19643 Court No. - 17 Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 1624 of 2023 Applicant :- Rajendra Ram Opposite Party :- Sri Shobhit Kumar Kushwaha, Executive Engineer, Saryu Drainge Khand-1, Bahraich Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Awasthi,Shubham Shukla Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. 2. Heard. 3. The instant contempt application has been filed by the applicant alleging disobedience of the order dated 15.02.2023 passed by this Court in Writ-A No. 8531 of 2021. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that after attaining the age of superannuation, the applicant retired on 30.06.2020. Thereafter, on 09.09.2020, recovery order was issued related to some loss in a project and the said order was challenged before this Court in Writ-A No. 8531 of 2021. This writ petition was allowed vide order dated 15.02.2023 and the recovery order dated 09.09.2020 was set aside. It is further submitted that an order dated 13.04.2021 was passed, by which, one increment was also given, which was left and the future pay of the petitioner was shown as Rs. 75,400/-. Thereafter, some query was made by the Pension Directorate vide order dated 24.07.2024. As a result, revised fixation order dated 26.07.2024 was passed by the respondent by mentioning the gross pay of the petitioner as Rs. 73,200/- which was being paid to him at the time of retirement. In the meantime, the petitioner preferred contempt petition and the respondent was summoned, and another revised order dated 27.02.2025 was passed by the respondent by saying that the petitioner is entitled for gross pay of Rs. 71,100/-. It is next submitted that the petitioner is being harassed by the respondent in place of making compliance of the directions of this Court passed on 15.02.2023, therefore, the respondent be summoned and punished accordingly. 5. Sri Amrendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the controversy in the writ petition in question regarding the recovery of Rs. 22,66,220/- is related to some work in which some loss was taken place; that writ petition has been allowed; the said amount has already been released in favour of the petitioner. He further submits that there was no direction issued by the writ Court for giving any increment or fixation of pay scale, therefore, there is no violation of the direction issued by this Court as such the contempt application may be dismissed. 6. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and going through the contents of the affidavits filed by the counsel for the parties as well as supplementary affidavit filed today, it is evident that in the writ petition in question, the issue was related to recovery of Rs. 22,66,220/-, which was related to some loss in a project and the writ petition has been allowed. Admittedly, the said amount has already been released in favour of the applicant. In such circumstances, no contempt is made out. Therefore, the present contempt application is misconceived and the same stands dismissed. 7. However, it is open to the applicant to take appropriate remedy, if he is felling aggrieved with the order passed by the respondent related to the fixation of pay scale. Order Date :- 8.4.2025 Arpan Digitally signed by :- ARPAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- ARPAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench