Kamaal Ahmad vs Gajendra Pratap Singh, Distt. Development Officer, Lakhimpur Kheri

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 3012 of 2025

Kamaal Ahmad

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

Gajendra Pratap Singh, Distt. Development Officer, Lakhimpur Kheri .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Abhilasha Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :

¶7

Court No. - 8

¶8

HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J.

¶9

Applicant has filed objection against the compliance affidavit, which is taken on record.

¶10

The present contempt application has been preferred against the alleged non-compliance of the judgement and order dated 21.11.2024 passed in Special Appeal No.175 of 2024, the relevant para of the judgment is quoted hereinbelow:

¶11

"67. In light of the aforesaid discussions, this Court comes to the conclusion that the writ petitioners could not have been granted the benefit to continue to serve till such time all the regular vacancies are filled, hence, the judgment dated 16.04.2024 to that extent is not sustainable and is accordingly set aside. It is further provided that in case if the writ petitioners join their parent department in pursuance of the impugned orders dated 07.07.2023, they shall be permitted to do so within three weeks from today and they may not be treated to be not working to deny them their salaries on the principles of no work, no pay. "

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant had joined in parent department on 23.12.2024 after the repatriation from the borrowing department on 7.7.2023. The parent department has started making payment of salary to the applicant with effect from the date of his joining i.e. 23.12.2024 but denied to give salary from the date of repatriation till the date of joining on the principle of 'no work no pay' and asked the applicant to take the salary from the borrower department.

¶13

CAPL No. 3012 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

It is further submitted that the Block Development Officer has prepared the bill for payment of arrears of salary w.e.f. 8.7.2023 till 22.12.2024 and forwarded it to the District Development Officer i.e. respondent but he is not making the payment of the same.

¶16

On the other hand learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the compliance affidavit has already been filed though there is no specific reason assigned for non-payment of arrears of salary for the period as mentioned above, but the same reason could be gathered from the order dated 4.7.2025, which has been enclosed as Annexure No.5 to the objection against the compliance affidavit where the same has been denied on the principle of 'no work no pay'.

¶17

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, going through the record of the case and the affidavits filed by the respective parties, the position which emerges out in the present case is that in the judgment passed in the Special Appeal, only those persons were made entitled for payment of salary from the date of repatriation till date of joining or in other words in the Special Appeal an order has been passed that the salary shall not be denied on the principle of 'no work no pay' to those employees who will join within three weeks from today i.e. 21.11.2024 and as per admitted case, the applicant has given his joining in the 4th week i.e. on 23.12.2024 i.e. after three weeks, so the direction in the special appeal is very clear that those persons would not be denied salary on the principle of 'no work no pay', who would give their joining within three weeks from the date of passing of judgment and order dated 21.11.2024.

¶18

As far as the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that the Block Development Officer has forwarded the bill of arrears of salary of the applicant. This submission of the learned counsel for the applicant has no force for the reason that the Block Development Officer may have forwarded the bill for the purpose of payment of arrears but whether the applicant is entitled or not, it would be seen in the light of the judgement and order dated 21.11.2024 passed in the special appeal.

¶19

From the facts, circumstances and discussion made hereinabove, the contempt application is devoid of merits and it is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶20

CAPL No. 3012 of 2025

¶21

3

¶22

The notice, if any, issued against the respondent stands discharged.

¶23

(Manish Kumar,J.)

¶24

December 11, 2025

¶25

S. Kumar

¶26

Digitally signed by :- SANTOSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Kamaal Ahmad v. Gajendra Pratap Singh, Distt. Development Officer, Lakhimpur Kheri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamaal Ahmad v. Gajendra Pratap Singh, Distt. Development Officer, Lakhimpur Kheri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vandana and Another Vs Arvind Kumar Prin. Secy. Medical Health and Another

Suresh Chandra Gupta Vs Shri Ram Kewal Dir. Mahila Kalyan U.P. Lucknow

Udai Pratap Singh Vs Sri Indra Vikram Singh, Director Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad Kisan Mandi Bhawan Lko.

Gudiya vs Chandra Vijay Singh Distt. Magistrate/Collector, Ayodhya

Vishnu Kumar vs Sri Naveen Khandelwal Divisional Forest Officer/Divisional Director Social Forestry Div. Sitapur

Atul Kumar vs Shri L. Venkateshwarlu, Prin. Secy. Social Welfare Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others