HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 6739 of 2026 Court No. - 53 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J. 1. The present contempt petition has been preferred alleging non-compliance of the order dated 19.03.2009 passed in Writ Petition No. 3762 of 2009, the order whereof is quoted hereinunder: "Learned Standing Counsel appears for the respondent No.1. Shri Srikant Shukla has accepted notice on behalf of respondent. Nos.2 top 5 They are granted four weeks' time to file counter affidavit. The petitioner will have one week, thereafter, to file rejoinder affidavit. List on 11th May, 2009. On the death of his father serving in the Corporation in harness the petitioner was appointed on compassionate grounds. Now the respondents seck to recover the amount due against the petitioner's father from the petitioner's salary. It is contended that the General Manager had dropped the enquiry after the death of petitioner's father. Prima facie the petitioner cannot be made liable for the loss, which may have been caused by petitioner's father, as he died before the departmental enquiry establishing the guilt could be concluded. As an interim measure, the respondents are restrained from recovering any amount from the petitioner's salary for the loss alleged to be caused by petitioners father, treating it to be the debit amount of the petitioner." 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that despite the existence of the said order, recovery has been made on 04.01.2022 of an amount of Rs. 98,560/-, thus, the opposite parties have committed contempt. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant. 4. Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 reads as under: Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Krishna Kumar Maurya Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Rajeev Kumar Pandey .....Applicant(s) T.K. Shibu .....Opposite Party(s) "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." 5. The language employed in Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act itself provides that no Court shall initiate any proceedings for 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. 6. In the present case, the contempt application has been filed in the year 2026 whereas the deduction/ violation of the order of the writ court was done on 04.01.2022 that too after a period of four years beyond the statutory period. 7. In Pallav Sheth Vs. Custodian, 2001 (7) SCC 549, the Hon'ble Apex Court in para-41 observed as under: "41. One of the principles underlying the law of limitation is that a litigant must act diligently and not sleep over its rights. In this background such an interpretation should be placed on Section 20 of the Act which does not lead to an anomalous result causing hardship to the party who may have acted with utmost diligence and because of the inaction on the part of the Court a contemner cannot be made to suffer. Interpreting the section in the manner canvassed by Mr. Venugopal would mean that the Court would be rendered powerless to punish even though it may be fully convinced of the blatant nature of a contempt having been committed and the same having been brought to the notice of the Court soon after the committal of the contempt and within the period of one year of the same. Section 20, therefore, has to be construed in a manner which would avoid such an anomaly and hardship both as regards the litigant as also by placing a pointless fetter on the part of the Court to punish for its contempt. An interpretation of Section 20, like the one canvassed by the Appellant, which would render the constitutional power of the Courts nugatory in taking action for contempt even in cases of gross contempt, successfully hidden for a period of one year by practising fraud by the contemner would render Section 20 as liable to be regarded as being in conflict with Article 129 and/or Article 215. Such a rigid interpretation must therefore be avoided." 8. Further recently the Hon'ble Apex Court in S. Tirupathi Rao v. M. Lingamaiah & Ors.; 2024 INSC 544 this Court had reiterated the said law. 9. Confronted with the said situation, learned counsel for the applicant seeks CAPL No. 6739 of 2026 2 liberty to raise these questions in the pending writ petition. 10. Accordingly, the contempt application is consigned to record leaving it open to the applicant to raise the said issues in the pending writ petition. September 24, 2026 Ashu CAPL No. 6739 of 2026 3 (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad