HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 1712 of 2025 Court No. - 8 HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J. 1. Heard. 2. This Court has asked the learned counsel for the applicant, if he wants, he may take time for filing objection against the compliance affidavit but he refused to file objection and has submitted that he may be permitted to argue the matter without filing the objections. 3. The present contempt application has been preferred against the alleged non compliance of order dated 15.01.2025. The relevant para of the judgment is quoted herein below:- "20. In the light of discussion made above, present writ petition is allowed with all consequential benefits to the petitioner. The impugned orders dated 10.05.2024 and 20.08.2024 are hereby set aside. The matter is remitted to the disciplinary authority to pass fresh order in accordance with law with regard to punishment to be inflicted upon the petitioner. While passing fresh order, the disciplinary authority shall duly take into account the punishment awarded to all other office bearers being Preeti Pandey, Lal Bahadur Gupta, Anil Kumar and Vijay Singh. " 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant was dismissed for the charge of sitting on 'Dharna' for four days, whereas, other persons were awarded lesser punishment of stoppage of three increments. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the applicant had approached Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sikandar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Smt. Renu Mishra .....Applicant(s) Sri Ranveer Prasad Prin. Secy. Food And Civil Supplies Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) this Court by filing Writ -A No. 8864 of 2024, which was allowed by a judgment and order dated 15.01.2025 and the relevant para of the judgment has already been quoted above. 5. It is further submitted that despite directions in the judgment and order dated 15.01.2025 passed in the writ petition that the similar punishment should also be awarded to the applicant as awarded to four other persons, i.e. to Preeti Pandey, Lal Bahadur Gupta, Anil Kumar and Vijay Singh but the respondent has awarded higher punishment than the other four persons by passing order for stoppage of 11 increments. 6. On the other hand, the learned State Counsel has submitted that a compliance affidavit has been filed by respondent no.2 on 23.07.2025, against which no objections have been filed by the applicant till date and enclosing therein the copy of the order dated 12.07.2025, discussing the distinction in the case of the applicant and other four persons and awarding different punishments. The distinction between the case of the applicant and other four persons, has been discussed at page 41 of the order dated 12.07.2025, the relevant is quoted herein below:- " ्ऺकरण मȅ यािचनी DZारा योिजत ्ऺģनगत िरट यािचका मȅ पािरत मा० उċच ęयायालय के िनणăयादेश िदनांक 15.01.2025 के समादर मȅ यािचनी सिहत ्ऺकरण मȅ दोषी अęय किमयȋ यथा-ũीमती ्ऺीती पाĔडेय, Wेśीय िवपणन अिधकारी, ũी लालबहाɭर गुĚता, Wेśीय िवपणन अिधकारी, ũी अिनल कु मार, Wेśीय िवपणन अिधकारी एवं ũी िवजय िसह, Wेśीय िवपणन अिधकारी के िवɴǪ िनगăत आरोप / अनुपूरक आरोप एवं उसके समथăन मȅ ्ऺĥतुत साĨयȋ व अęय समĥत अिभलेखȋ तथा उनके िवɴǪ िनगăत दĔडादेशȋ का तुलनाĕमक ɴप से गहनता से पिरशीलन और परीWण िकया गया िजसमȅ पाया गया िक यािचनी ũीमती रेनू िमũा, िवपणन िनरीWक (पदċयुत) के िवɴǪ कु ल 06 आरोप एवं 02 अनुपूरक आरोप तथा उपरोǘानुसार दोषी अęय किमयȋ के िवɴǪ कु ल 06 आरोप एवं 01 अनुपूरक आरोप िनɴिपत िकये गये हȈ । इस ्ऺकार यािचनी के िवɴǪ अęय दोषी किमयȋ की तुलना मȅ एक अनुपूरक आरोप सं०-02 अिधक अिधरोिपत िकया गया है, िजसमȅ मुćय ɴप से यािचनी को उċचािधकािरयȋ के आदेशȋ की अवहेलना करते ɷये ĥवेċछाचािरता बरतने, यूिनयन के लैटर पैड का ɭɴपयोग कर पś िदनांक 09.08.2022 DZारा िनलĞबन वापस लेने हेतु उċचािधकािरयȋ के ऊपर दबाव बनाने अęयथा की दशा मȅ आĕमदाह की धमकी देने हेतु आरोिपत िकया गया है, जो एक गĞभीर ्ऺकृ ित का आरोप होने के कारण यािचनी के ्ऺकरण को उǘ विणत किमयȋ के ्ऺकरण से पृथक करता है।" CAPL No. 1712 of 2025 2 7. After hearing learned for the parties and going through the record of the case, it is found that the writ court has directed the disciplinary authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with law and while passing the fresh order, the authority shall duly take into account the punishment awarded to all other office bearers, namely, Preeti Pandey, Lal Bahadur Gupta, Anil Kumar and Vijay Singh. There is no direction for passing the similar punishment order as it has been passed in the case of other four persons as argued by the learning for the applicant. 8. After the perusal of the order dated 12.07.2025 and the relevant paras of the order which are quoted here in above, it is found that the disciplinary authority has given reasons for passing a harsher punishment order to the applicant. The judgment and order passed in the writ petition has been complied with. 9. From the facts, circumstances and discussion made herein above, the present contempt application is hereby dismissed. Notice, if any, stands discharge. November 18, 2025 Preeti CAPL No. 1712 of 2025 3 (Manish Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench