HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 513 of 2025 Court No. - 8 HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J. The present contempt application has been preferred for alleged non compliance of the judgment and order dated 07.05.2024. The relevant paragraphs of the same are quoted hereinbelow:- "18. Keeping in view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The orders impugned dated 29.05.2012 and 14.12.2010 passed by the respondents No.2 & 3, copies of which are annexure No.1 & 7 to the petition respectively, are quashed. The matter is remitted to the competent authority i.e. respondent no.3 to pass a fresh order after considering the reply of the petitioner dated 02.11.2010. In case the competent authority is of the view that the said reply is not clear, it would be open for him to require the petitioner to submit a fresh reply which would also be considered in accordance with law. 19. So far as the claim of the petitioner for promotion and release of the salary is concerned, it would be open to the petitioner to submit a representation in this regard before the competent authority within a period of two weeks from today along with the certified copy of this order which would be considered by the competent authority in accordance with law along with the relevant rules within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the said representation. " Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that after the judgment, a fresh order dated 04.01.2025 has been passed by the respondent, restoring the earlier order dated 14.12.2010 which was quashed by the writ Court, hence, the action on the part of the respondent amounts to wilful and intentional disobedience of the judgment and order passed by the writ Court and he is liable to be punished under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that after passing of the judgment and order in the writ petition, the reply of the applicant was considered and a detailed fresh order has been passed on 04.01.2025. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, it is found that the writ Court has quashed the order dated 14.12.2010 with a direction that the respondent may pass afresh order after Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Akhlaq Ali, Shabana Akhlaq Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Suresh Chandra .....Applicant(s) Sri Chandra Vijay Singh, District Magistrate Ayodhya .....Opposite Party(s) considering the reply of the applicant dated 02.11.2010. The submission of learned counsel for the applicant that the respondent cannot pass afresh order similar to the order passed dated 14.12.2010 as it was quashed by the writ Court. Further submission of learned counsel for the applicant that after quashing of the earlier order in the writ petition, the claim of the petitioner could not be rejected. Both these submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant are not acceptable for the reason that the writ Court has nowhere directed the authorities not to pass any order against the applicant. The direction was to pass an order after considering the reply of the applicant which has been considered and thereafter the order has been passed. In view of above, the present contempt application is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. November 21, 2025 Nitesh CAPL No. 513 of 2025 2 (Manish Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- NITESH KUMAR TEWARY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench