Dismissed¶15

Shiv Nath Singh and 2 Others v. Amrit Abhijat the Addl. Chief Secy. Urban Deve. Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC25 Apr 2025CAPL/1222/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CAPL No. 1222 of 2025; Shiv Nath Singh v. Amrit Abhijat (Addl. Chief Secy. Urban Development, U.P.); contempt application dismissed as infructuous upon compliance with the writ petition judgment; regular monthly pension assured by affidavit before Division Bench; dispute over determination of dearness allowance left to remedies permissible under law; notice discharged; Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench; Court No. 8; Justice Manish Kumar; December 1, 2025.

What did the court decide?

Contempt application dismissed as infructuous, with liberty to the applicants to avail the remedy as may be permissible under the law if still aggrieved; notice, if any, stands discharged. ¶15

Shiv Nath Singh and 2 Others vs Amrit Abhijat the Addl. Chief Secy. Urban Deve. Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Contempt application dismissed as infructuous, with liberty to the applicants to avail the remedy as may be permissible under the law if still aggrieved; notice, if any, stands discharged.

¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the judgment and order passed in the writ petition stands complied with, so that the present contempt application has become infructuous. +1 more

¶12

Court's answer

As the judgment and order passed in the writ petition stands complied with, the present contempt application has become infructuous and is dismissed as such.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

If the applicants are still aggrieved, they were granted liberty to avail the remedy as may be permissible under the law, leaving the residual dispute over determination of dearness allowance (and the pension payment concern) to such remedies.

¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Court No. 8, Justice Manish Kumar - Contempt Application (Civil) No. 1222 of 2025, Shiv Nath Singh and two others versus Amrit Abhijat, Addl. Chief Secy. Urban Development, Govt. of U.P., Lucknow, and two others; decided December 1, 2025. The opposite party filed a further compliance affidavit, which was taken on record. Counsel for the applicants flagged two matters: the compliance affidavit nowhere mentioned that pension would be paid regularly every month, and there was a dispute pertaining to determination of the dearness allowance paid. Counsel for the opposite parties replied in substance that an affidavit assuring regular monthly pension payment had already been given before the Division Bench, that the writ court had directed payment of dearness allowance due to the applicants, that whatever was permissible in accordance with law had already been paid, and that any residual dispute could be pursued through remedies permissible under law (counsel's submissions, not findings of this Court). Holding that the judgment and order passed in the writ petition stood complied with, the Court dismissed the contempt application as infructuous, with liberty to the applicants to avail any remedy permissible under law if still aggrieved; notice, if any, stood discharged.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 1222 of 2025

¶3

Shiv Nath Singh And 2 Others

¶4

Versus

¶5

Amrit Abhijat The Addl. Chief Secy. Urban Deve. Govt. Of U.P. Lko. And 2 Others

¶6

.....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Savita Jain Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Rishabh Kapoor

¶7

Court No. - 8

¶8

HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J.

¶9

The opposite party has filed further compliance affidavit, which is taken on record.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that two things which are noticeable are that firstly, in compliance affidavit filed by the opposite parties, it is nowhere mentioned that the pension will be paid regularly to the applicants every month and secondly, there is a dispute pertaining to the determination of the dearness allowance paid to the applicant.

¶11

In reply thereto, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has submitted that the pension will be paid regularly every month as in this regard, an affidavit has already been given before the Division Bench and there is no occasion to flout the same. As far as the dispute relating to determination of dearness allowance is concerned, the writ court has directed for payment of dearness allowance which is due to the applicants and as per the opposite party no. 4, whatever is permissible in accordance with law for payment of dearness allowance, that has already been paid and if there is any dispute about the amount, the applicants may avail the remedy as may be permissible under the law.

¶12

In view of the facts, circumstances and discussion made hereinabove, as the judgment and order passed in the writ petition stands complied with, the present contempt application has

¶13

CAPL No. 1222 of 2025

¶14

¶15

become infructuous and is dismissed as such, with liberty to the applicants to avail the remedy as may be permissible under the law, if they are still aggrieved.

¶16

Notice, if any, stands discharged.

¶17

December 1, 2025 DiVYa

¶18

(Manish Kumar,J.)

¶19

Digitally signed by :- DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shiv Nath Singh and 2 Others v. Amrit Abhijat the Addl. Chief Secy. Urban Deve. Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Nath Singh and 2 Others v. Amrit Abhijat the Addl. Chief Secy. Urban Deve. Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Alok Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Govt. Lko and Another

Akash Kanojia and 9 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Informant Thru. Case Crime No. 0036/2017, Police Station Dhammuar, Distt. Sultanpur Vs State of Up Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Jitendra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Akhilesh Kumar Pandey vs Yogendra Kumar Singh, Joint Director Education Ayodhya

Budhram @ Buddhu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Sectt. Lko