HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 627 of 2025 Court No. - 8 HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J. 1. Respondent No.2 has filed compliance affidavit, which is taken on record. 2. The present contempt application has been preferred for alleged non- compliance of judgement and order dated 5.11.2024, passed in Writ A No.9632 of 2024, the relevant para is quoted hereinbelow: "In view of the above, it is provided that in case the petitioners submit individual representations within two weeks from today before respondent no.2 then respondent no.2 shall endevour to decide the same by means of a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law and the relevant rules within a further period of eight weeks from the date of submission of the individual representations along with certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid direction, writ petition is disposed of. " 3. Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that in compliance of judgement and order passed by the writ court, the representation of the applicant has been decided by passing an order dated 11.11.2025, copy of which has been enclosed as Annexure No. C-1 to the compliance affidavit, hence the present contempt application has become infructuous and it is liable to be dismissed as such. 4. On the other hand learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the representation of the applicant has been decided after considering the grounds taken by the applicant in his representation and by observing that Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shiv S.E. Chitambar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Shrawan Kumar .....Applicant(s) L.Venkateshwar Loo, Addl. Chief Secy. Prin. Secy Deptt. Of Social Welfare Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) the representation is without date and there was no force found in the representation. 5. On being asked from the learned counsel for the applicant that the representation which was made by the applicant was for payment of salary, he has replied that it was for payment of salary. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, the order dated 11.11.2025 has been passed denying the salary to the applicant by assigning the reasons that after recording the statement of teachers in which who deposed that the applicant had never worked in the institution. The order of the writ court is only to decide the representation of the applicant by reasoned and speaking order. The questions whether the applicant had worked in the institution or not and whether the advertisement in the widely circulated news papers was made or not, which is also one of the ground for rejecting the representation, cannot be adjudicated in the contempt proceedings. 7. In view of the facts, circumstances and discussion made hereinabove, the judgment and order passed by the writ court has been complied with and the present contempt application has become infructuous and it is dismissed as such. 8. The notice, if any, issued against the respondent stands discharged. November 17, 2025 S. Kumar CAPL No. 627 of 2025 2 (Manish Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- SANTOSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench