HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 3304 of 2025 Court No. - 8 HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J. The present contempt application has been preferred for alleged disobedience of the judgment and order dated 01.08.2019 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 9016 of (S/S) 1993 ( Abdul Qayum Vs. State of U.P. its Director Basic Education and 5 others. The relevant part of the said order/judgment is quoted hereinbelow:- " In view of the fact that the petitioner is continuing in service ever since his initial appointment in the year 1993 and the opposite parties have not brought any material on record to indicate that the work and conduct of the petitioner is unsatisfactory, the present Writ Petition is disposed of finally with a direction to the Additional Director, (Basic)U.P., Lucknow, opposite party no.7 to consider the claim of the petitioner with regard to regularisation in service in terms of the extant Regularisation Rules in case the same are applicable. A reasoned and speaking order pertaining to the same shall be passed by the authorities concerned within four weeks from the date a copy of this order is produced before the opposite parties. Disposal of this petition shall not have any adverse effect upon continuance in service of the petitioner or upon the consequential service benefits already accrued to the petitioner. " Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the Writ Court has passed the judgment and order dated 01.08.2019 directing the respondent no. 7 to consider the claim of the petitioner with regard to the regularization in service in terms of the Regularization Rules, in case, the same is applicable in the case of the applicant. The said judgment and order was served by the applicant upon the respondent on 03.08.2019 but Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dheeraj Srivastava, Indu Prakash Singh, Pooja Maurya Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Abdul Qayum Alias Abdul Quyum Alias Abdul Qayyum .....Applicant(s) Sadhana Srivastava, Internal Director (Basic) Basic Shiksha Parishad Lko. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) the claim of the applicant has yet not been considered. Learned Standing counsel has submitted that the present contempt application is barred by Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, as for the first time cause of action arose on 01.09.2019 and the present contempt application has been filed on 25.09.2025 i.e. after expiry of six years period from the date when the cause of action first arose. On being asked from the learned counsel for the applicant to address the Court on Section 20 of the Act, 1971, learned counsel for the applicant is unable to assist the court on the query put by the court to advance the submissions relating to Section 20 of the Act, 1971. After hearing learned counsel for the applicant and going through the record of the case, it is an admitted case of the applicant that for the first time the contempt has alleged to have been committed on 01.09.2019 and as per Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the contempt petition is to be filed within a period of one year from the date the contempt has alleged to have been committed. For convenience, the Section 20 of the Contempt Courts Act, 1971 is being reproduced hereinbelow:- "20. Limitation for actions for contempt:- No court shall initiate any proceedings of contempt, either on its own motion or otherwise, after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed." Further, in the case of Islammudin vs. Umesh Chandra Tiwari and Anr. [2009 (5) ADJ 656 (DB)], the Division Bench of this Court has held that the law laid down by the Apex Court in Pallav Sheth vs. Costodian and Ors. [(2001) 7 SCC 549] does not make Section 5 of the Act 1963 applicable and would not confer power upon the Court to condone or waive delay where proceedings of contempt are sought to be initiated under the Act, 1971 after one year from the date when the contempt is alleged to have been committed. In the present case, the contempt has alleged to have been committed on 01.09.2019 whereas the present contempt petition has been preferred after the expiry of more than six years i.e. on 25.09.2025 whereas it was to be filed prior to or on 01.09.2020. Hence, it is barred by Section 20 of the CAPL No. 3304 of 2025 2 Contempt Courts Act, 1971. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the present contempt application is dismissed. October 15, 2025 Ashish CAPL No. 3304 of 2025 3 (Manish Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHISH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench