SARJOO BAI v. VIPIN KUMAR, ZILA BASIC SHIKASH ADHIKARI AND ANOTHER
CAPL/4744/2024 · 2026-01-27
Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 16184 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 16184 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 4744 of 2024 Court No. - 9 HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.
1. Surendra Kumar Tiwari, Secretary, U.P. Basic Education Board, Prayagraj and Avyakt Ram Tiwari, District Basic Education Officer, Banda are present in the Court who are identified by Sri Yatindra, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no. 2, and Sri Vimal Chandra Mishra, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no. 1, respectively.
2. Two compliance affidavits have been filed today, one on behalf of opposite party no. 1 and the other on behalf of opposite party no. 2, which are taken on record.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the opposite party that writ Court while allowing the writ petition on 19.04.2023 had required for paying the interest on the delayed payment of gratuity from 02.10.2011 along with interest @ 8%.
4. Sri Yatindra, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no. 2 submits that calculation was done from 2011 of the interest on delayed payment of gratuity. According to him, after calculation the amount of Rs.1,15,803/- has been credited into the account of the applicant on 27.01.2026 itself. An order has been passed by Secretary, U.P. Basic Education Board, Prayagraj on 26.01.2026 which has been appended as annexure-2 to compliance affidavit.
5. In view of said fact, as the order of writ Court has been complied with Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Om Prakash Chaube Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Rajesh Khare, Yatindra Sarjoo Bai .....Applicant(s) Vipin Kumar, Zila Basic Shikash Adhikari And Another .....Opposite Party(s)
and interest has been paid, the contempt application is rendered infructuous and stands dismissed.
6. Contempt notice stands discharged.
7. However, in case the order of writ Court is not complied with, the applicant is at liberty to move a recall application. January 28, 2026 (V.S.SINGH) CAPL No. 4744 of 2024 2 (Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIDYA SAGAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad