Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:134207 Court No. - 1 Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 7420 of 2023 Applicant :- M.S Rana Opposite Party :- M. Anil, General Manager And Disciplinary Authority Counsel for Applicant :- In Person,Pushpendra Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- Sandeep Kumar Singh Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J. Heard Mr. M.S. Rana-In Person and Sri H.N. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Sandeep Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party. The present contempt application has been filed pleading willful disobedience of the order dated 7.7.2023 passed by this Court in Special Appeal No. 413 of 2022. Operative part of order is being quoted hereinbelow:- "56. For the aforesaid, on the first aspect of the matter, with regard to the substituted punishment, we are of the considered view that the writ petitioner is entitled to computation of retiral benefits, treating him to be in service in the pay scale of Rs.19,920/-, in MMG Scale-II with effect from 5.8.2004 till 01.11.2007, and the revised pay scale of Rs.28,100/- in MMG Scale-II with effect from 01.11.2007 till the date of superannuation, i.e. 30.09.2009. All computations are required to be made, accordingly and as such, the writ petitioner/appellant herein is also entitled for re- computation of the pensionary benefits as has been made by the D.G.M. Bareilly vide order dated 08.01.2018. The settlement of all claims of the writ petitioner finally on 26.07.2018 is required to revisited by the respondent bank by re-computation of the retirement benefits made by it on wrong placement of the writ petitioner in the lowest stage of MMG Scale-II in the basic pay of Rs.13,820/- with effect from 05.08.2004. The re-computation of the retiral benefits including pension strictly in accordance with law, Rules etc. applicable has to be made, accordingly. However, the pecuniary loss caused to the bank computed to Rs.21.20 lacs, as intimated to us, has already been deducted by the respondent bank, while finalizing the retirement dues and further since that issue has been finally adjudicated vide judgement and order dated 21.04.2014, it is not open for the writ petitioner to challenge the deduction of the said amount on the premise that the same is not been referable to any Rule, Law, Regulation of the bank, in as much as, the judgement and order dated 21.04.2014 has attained finality with the dismissal of Special Leave Petition No.21091 of 2014 on 05.09.2014. 57. As regards the dispute about Rs. 4,57,501/- as bank's contribution to Provident fund, it was clarified in the communication dated 12.09.2018 sent to the writ petitioner/appellant that the said contribution was not credited to the account of the appellant at the relevant point of time, as it was appropriated towards the loss caused to the bank and the recovery of amount of Rs.21.20 lacs from the retiral benefits made on 26.07.2008 was inclusive of amount of Rs.4,57,501/-. It was also clarified that excess amount of Rs.4,57,501/- which was recovered on 26.07.2018 had been reversed in his account on 12.09.2018. The dispute pertaining to recovery of Rs.4,57,501/- in excess or non-crediting of the said amount as bank's contribution to the Provident fund has, thus, been settled with the reversal of the said amount in the account of the appellant on 12.09.2018. 58. With regard to subsistence allowance, Regulation 4 of the Regulation' 1976 is clear to the effect that the subsistence allowance was required to be computed on the basic pay which the officer/employee was receiving on the date prior to the date of suspension. The opinion drawn by the respondent-bank in the communication dated 12.09.2018, while disposing of the representation of the writ petitioner dated 14.08.2018, that there is no effect of salary, revision on subsistence allowance, thus, found to be justified." Learned counsel for the opposite party has filed compliance affidavit, which is taken on record. On the basis of affidavit, he submitted that order of Appellate Court dated 7.7.2023 passed in Special Appeal No. 413 of 2022 has been fully complied with. Being confronted by the Court, Mr. M.S. Rana-In person could not demonstrate that which part of order has not been complied with rather he is claiming interest upon the paid amount for which learned counsel for the opposite party has denied the interest and submitted that there is no order of Appellate Court for payment of interest, but submitted that he is ready to pay the amount calculated by any expert of accountancy suggested by M.S. Rana in terms of order of Appellate Court dated 7.7.2023. Upon which M.S. Rana has denied the same and only disputing the calculation so made by the opposite party and insisting upon his calculation. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. From perusal of the same, it is apparent that there is substantive compliance of order of Appellate Court dated 7.7.2023 and disputed facts cannot be determined by the competent Court. Therefore, Court is of view that there is no wilful disobedience of order and no contempt is made out. In case applicant is of the view that he is entitled for certain more amounts in compliance of order of Appellate Court dated 7.7.2023, he is at liberty to move representation before Competent Authority or approach this Court by way of filing writ petition. Accordingly, the contempt application is dismissed. No order as to costs. Order Date :- 7.8.2025/Junaid Digitally signed by :- JUNAID AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad