Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:47393 Court No. - 17 Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 2078 of 2025 Applicant :- Smt. Manju Sharma Opposite Party :- Dr. Nitin Bansal, Commissioner Trade Tax Deptt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Km. Neelam Singh Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J. 1. Affidavit of compliance filed on behalf of opposite party is taken on record. 2. Learned counsel for the opposite party submits that in view of the judgment and order dated 21.04.2025, whereby, the Writ Court has directed the opposite party to decide the representation of the applicant-petitioner, the same has been decided vide order dated 28.07.2025, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure No. CA-1 to the compliance affidavit. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the judgment and order passed by the Writ Court has not been complied with in letter and spirit, as the opposite party has wrongly rejected the claim of the applicant. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, Writ Court has passed the following order dated 21.04.2025, which is quoted hereinbelow. "Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing counsel for the respondents. The petition has been filed with the following prayers:- "(i). issue a writ, order or direction in nature of mandamus commanding to opposite party No.2 & 3 to pay arrear of the pension since 01/01/2016 to 3/5/2022 according to VIIth Pay Commission. (ii) issue a writ, order or direction in nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to provide interest for delay payment of arrer of pension to petitioner.." After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it would suffice if the petitioner is permitted to submit a fresh representation raising his grievances to respondent no. 2, with a direction to decide the same within a stipulated period. Learned Standing Counsel has no objection to this innocuous prayer. Considering the above, the petitioner is directed to submit a fresh representation before respondent no. 2 within two weeks from today and in case, such a representation is submitted, the same shall be decided by respondent no. 2 within a further period of four weeks by passing a reasoned and speaking order. With these observations, the petition stands disposed of. " 5. From the perusal of the order aforesaid, it is evident that there is only a direction to decide the representation of the applicant and whether it has wrongly or rightly been decided, is not to be adjudicated by the Contempt Court or it is not within the domain/jurisdiction of the Contempt Court to look into the decision taken by the Authority concerned, particularly, when there is simple direction of the Writ Court to decide the representation of the applicant. Therefore, no contempt is made out against the opposite party. 6. In view of the above, the present application is hereby dismissed as having become infructuous. 7. Notices, if any, are hereby discharged. Order Date :- 13.8.2025 V. Sinha Digitally signed by :- VAISHALI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench