HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 2502 of 2025 Court No. - 8 HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J. 1. Respondent No.1 is present in person and has filed compliance affidavit, which is taken on record. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the compliance affidavit has been filed, which is an eye wash and has drawn the attention of this Court to para 14 of the compliance affidavit, wherein the payment has been made in pursuance of the some amended demand letter. 3. It is further submitted that the said amended demand letter has already been enclosed as Annexure No.3 to the paper book i.e. letter dated 11th July, 2025 whereby the District Social Welfare Officer, Sitapur after the verification of the demand and documents forwarded by the applicant has accepted the claim in the tune of Rs.57,18,466/- whereas the payment of Rs. 46,24,129/- has been made which is nothing but a willful disobedience of the judgment and order passed by the writ court under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 4. On the other hand learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the payment has been made as per fixation made by the Audit Section of the Headquarter after examining the demand raised by the applicant, so there is no defiane of the judgment passed in the writ petition and the present contempt application may be dismissed as infructuous. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Katyayan Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Hari Kishore Shukla .....Applicant(s) Moti Lal, Distt. Samaj Kalyan Officer Sitapur And Another .....Opposite Party(s) record of the case, it is found that on 12.05.2025 a judgment and order has been passed in the writ petition. The relevant para is quoted hereinbelow: "The opposite party no. 4 is directed to take fresh decision considering the grievance of the petitioner, strictly in accordance with law with expedition preferably within a period of 10 weeks from the receipt of certified copy of the order passed by this Court and the petitioner may prefer a fresh representation annexing therewith the certified copy of the order of this Court taking all pleas and ground which are available to him, failing which the petitioner would be entitled for the interest at the rate of 7% on the delayed payment. It is also needless to say that if on the aforesaid arrears of the salary, the claim of the petitioner for interest is admissible, the same may also be considered within the aforesaid stipulated time. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. " 6. In the judgment the Hon'ble Court has directed to take a fresh decision considering the grievance of the applicant and if the applicant would find to be entitled, the payment shall be made to him. 7. The submission of learned counsel for the applicant that the payment has not been made as per the amended demand letter i.e. the letter dated 11th July, 2025 forwarded by the District Social Welfare officer is not correct for the reason that this letter was written by the District Social Welfare Officer after examining the demand of the applicant at its level and forwarded the same to the Director for taking the legal opinion and guidance.The demand letter forwarded by the District Social Welfare Officer has been sent to the Audit Section of the Headquarter for examining the proposal and after the examination of the Audit Section of the Headquarter the payment has been made. The amended demand is not the letter dated 11th July, 2025 as alleged by the counsel for the applicant. Here the amended demand is a reference to the recommendation made by the Audit Section of the Headquarter, so the judgement and order passed by the writ court has been complied with. 8. In view of the facts, circumstances and discussion made hereinabove, the judgment and order passed by the writ court has been complied with. The present contempt application has become infructuous and it is dismissed as such. However if the applicant still feels that he still entitles some more amount, it may be open for him to seek any remedy if and as may be permissible under the law. CAPL No. 2502 of 2025 2 9. The notice, if any, issued against the respondent stands discharged. December 9, 2025 S. Kumar CAPL No. 2502 of 2025 3 (Manish Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- SANTOSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench