HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 397 of 2025 Court No. - 1 HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J. HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J. 1. Heard. 2. This is an appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 09.10.2025 passed in Contempt Application (Civil) No.1561 of 2025. 3. The contention of the appellant's counsel is that the writ petition of the respondent bearing number Writ-A No.8316 of 2022 was allowed quashing the dismissal order dated 28.09.2022 with a further observation - "Consequences to follow" and also a liberty to the appellant herein to proceed against the respondent-petitioner from the stage of enquiry in accordance with law. The enquiry is being held from the stage as referred in the judgment dated 04.02.2025 passed by the Writ Court in view of the liberty granted. During pendency of the liberty, provisional pension has been paid to the respondent, but the Contempt Court is insisting that leave encashment be also paid. The contention is that during pendency of the enquiry, leave encashment is not payable and all that is payable under the rules is provisional pension, which is being paid. Moreover, the Writ Court has not given any such direction for payment of post retiral dues especially leave encashment. The words "consequences to follow" cannot be made a ground by the Contempt Court to adjudicate and issue any direction for payment of remaining post retiral dues, such as leave encashment. He has Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Ratnesh Chandra Counsel for Respondent(s) : Anwar Ashfaq Balkar Singh,Housing Commissioner U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Lko. And Another .....Appellant(s) Keshav Dev Sharma And Another .....Respondent(s) referred to a government order dated 19.08.2016, copy of which is annexed at page 375, which permits withholding of leave encashment. 4. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent submitted that in view of the Full Bench decision in the case of Shivgopal and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. [2019(5) ADJ 441 (FB)] which has been referred by the Contempt Court, leave encashment cannot be withheld. However, on being further probed he accepted that there is no such specific observation or direction by the Full Bench that leave encashment should be paid. As regards payment of provisional pension he says that he is being paid the same only w.e.f. 04.02.2025, i.e. the date of judgment by the Writ Court and not from 30.09.2022 which is the date of retirement. 5. On being confronted, the counsel for the appellant submitted that this should be paid from the date it became due immediately after retirement. 6. The main point is as to whether the Contempt Court can proceed to adjudicate and issue directions on issues which have not been adjudicated nor directions have been issued specifically by the Writ Court. The law is very well settled in this regard. 7. As regards claim for leave encashment is concerned, if the same is not being paid, the respondent-petitioner can raise it separately by means of a writ petition instead of agitating it before the Contempt Court as this aspect was not considered by the Writ Court which was essentially concerned with the validity of dismissal order and after quashing it in that context has stated that "consequences to follow", nothing more. 8. We are of the opinion that the Contempt Court does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate and decide issues pertaining to payment of leave encashment in the facts of this case. The rules/order pertaining to payment of leave encashment would have to be scrutinized which was not done by the Writ Court as this was not in issue, consequently, the Contempt Court cannot enter into this issue. We leave it open for the respondent-petitioner to raise SPLA No. 397 of 2025 2 this grievance separately. We, however, make it clear that the statement made by Shri Chandra that provisional pension shall be paid to the respondent-petitioner from the date it became due after retirement which took place on 30.09.2022 should be adhered strictly and payment due shall be made within one month. Remaining issues are open for being agitated by the respondent-petitioner. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order is not sustainable. It is accordingly quashed. The appeal is allowed subject to the aforesaid. The contempt proceedings shall stand dropped. Our order shall be placed on the file of Contempt Application (Civil) No.1561 of 2025. November 12, 2025 Anand/- SPLA No. 397 of 2025 3 (Rajeev Bharti,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench