Udai Pratap Singh vs Counsel for Appellant(s)

1. Heard Shri Suryamani Singh Royekwar, Advocate assisted by Shri Aditya Mohan, learned counsel appearing for Mandi Parishad and Shri Jitendra Singh, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This is an appeal by the appellant challenging the order dated

16.5.2025 passed in Contempt Application (Civil) No. 792 of 2025. The order reads as under:- "1. Heard.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that C.P.F. amount of the applicant was issued, i.e., Rs.68,76,293/- and was paid to the applicant on 1.12.2020 and rest of the amount, i.e., Rs.21,59,418/- was not paid, then applicant preferred Writ A No.5019 of 2024, which was allowed on 8.7.2024 with the direction that Director, rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, Kisan Bhawan, Vibhuti Kand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow to ensure payment of interest to petitioners on subscriptions to the contributory provident fund at the admissible from the date of superannuation till the date the sum standing to the credit of the petitioners was actually paid to them. He further submits that admittedly Rs.21,59,418/- was credited in the account of the applicant but the 2 SPLA No. 176 of 2025 interest amount has not been paid, therefore, directions of the writ court has not been complied with in letter and spirit.

3. Sri Aditya Mohan, learned counsel for the respondent submits that order of the writ court has already been complied with in letter and spirit by passing a formal order dated 8.1.2025.

4. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, going through the contents of the order of the writ court as well as affidavit of compliance, it is undisputed fact that Rs.21,59,418/- was credited in the account of the applicant but interest has not been paid, therefore, affidavit of compliance dated 21.4.2025 is hereby, rejected.

5. List this case on 22.5.2025.

6. Respondent officer is directed to file fresh affidavit of compliance stating therein that interest on the due amount, i.e., Rs.21,59,418/- has been paid to the applicant, failing which, he shall appear before this Court for the purposes of framing of charge."

3. The contention of the appellant's counsel is that in compliance to the judgement dated 15.7.2024 passed by the writ Court in Writ-A No. 5307 of 2024, requisite amount of interest has been paid on 08.01.2025.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has invited our attention to para 15 of the affidavit in support of the application for interim relief, according to which the respondent-petitioner superannuated on 31.7.2016. He was paid the Contributory Provident Fund amount on 26.11.2020, though it should have been paid immediately after his superannuation. Nevertheless keeping in view the relevant Rules and Regulations applicable as the interest on the said amount was restricted under the Regulations/Rules itself to one year period, therefore, interest of Rs. 7,20,627/- was also paid 3 SPLA No. 176 of 2025 on 26.11.2020 on the aforesaid due amount. Thus, a total of Rs. 68,76,293/- was paid to the respondent-petitioner on 26.11.2020.

5. Being aggrieved, the respondent-petitioner filed the above-mentioned writ petition which was allowed inter alia observing that restricting the interest on subscriptions by an employee beyond the period of one year from the date of superannuation amounted to unjust enrichment. Accordingly, the writ Court directed the appellant to ensure payment of interest to the petitioner on subscriptions to the Contributory Provident Fund at the admissible rate from the date of superannuation till the date the sum standing to the credit of the petitioners was actually paid to them. The writ petition was disposed of in terms of the aforesaid observations contained in the judgement rendered in Writ-A No. 5019 of 2024 (Ram Kumar and another vs. State of U.P. and others).

6. Consequent to it, the appellants claim that they paid an amount of Rs. 21,59,418/- which was the additional amount towards interest on the original due amount which was paid on 26.11.2020. This additional amount of interest was paid on 1.8.2025. In view of the above, nothing remained to be complied. Accordingly, a compliance affidavit was filed, but in spite of it, the writ Court after going through the contents of the affidavit of compliance has observed that Rs. 21,59,418/- was credited in the account of the applicant, but interest has not been paid, therefore, affidavit of compliance dated 21.4.2025 was rejected.

7. The contention is that the contempt Court now veritably wants the appellant to pay interest on the aforesaid interest amount of Rs. 21,59,418/- which was not the direction of the writ Court. This observation in the impugned order is beyond jurisdiction of the contempt 4 SPLA No. 176 of 2025 Judge, therefore, this appeal is maintainable and the objection of the respondent-petitioner in this regard to the contrary is not acceptable.

8. Though Shri Jitendra Singh, learned counsel for the respondent insisted that against such routine orders, a special appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 does not lie, we are unable to accept this. The order which has been passed is not a routine order. The contempt Judge has applied his mind and has rejected the affidavit of compliance with the further observation that “Rs. 21,59,418/- was credited in the account of the applicant but interest has not been paid”. Now this amount of Rs. 21,59,418/- is the interest amount on the original amount mentioned herein-above. It appears that the contempt Judge has taken the view that the interest should further be paid on this amount which was paid in 2025, but there is no such direction by the writ Court, the contempt Judge could not have travelled beyond the directions given by the writ Court. This is not to say that the respondent-petitioner cannot raise such a claim separately by initiating appropriate proceedings either before the writ Court or such other Courts as may be permissible in law, but only to say that the contempt Judge should not have travelled beyond the scope of the directions issued by the writ Court.

9. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that not only the appeal is maintainable to this extent, the order impugned to this extent, is liable to be quashed with liberty, however, to respondent-petitioner to raise such claim for additional interest on the belated payment of interest, if otherwise permissible and maintainable as per law, before the appropriate Court/Forum. If the respondent-petitioner disputes the amount paid or wants to raise any other claim in respect thereof, it is open for him to do 5 SPLA No. 176 of 2025 so, but not before the contempt Court. 10 Subject to the aforesaid, the appeal is allowed. The contempt proceedings are hereby dropped.

11. Copy of this order shall be placed on record of the Contempt Application (Civil) No. 792 of 2025. October 14, 2025 Shravan (Rajeev Bharti,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) SHRAVAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Shri Suryamani Singh Royekwar, Advocate assisted by Shri Aditya Mohan, learned counsel appearing for Mandi Parishad and Shri Jitendra Singh, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This is an appeal by the appellant challenging the order dated

16.5.2025 passed in Contempt Application (Civil) No. 792 of 2025. The order reads as under:- "1. Heard.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that C.P.F. amount of the applicant was issued, i.e., Rs.68,76,293/- and was paid to the applicant on 1.12.2020 and rest of the amount, i.e., Rs.21,59,418/- was not paid, then applicant preferred Writ A No.5019 of 2024, which was allowed on 8.7.2024 with the direction that Director, rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, Kisan Bhawan, Vibhuti Kand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow to ensure payment of interest to petitioners on subscriptions to the contributory provident fund at the admissible from the date of superannuation till the date the sum standing to the credit of the petitioners was actually paid to them. He further submits that admittedly Rs.21,59,418/- was credited in the account of the applicant but the 2 SPLA No. 176 of 2025 interest amount has not been paid, therefore, directions of the writ court has not been complied with in letter and spirit.

3. Sri Aditya Mohan, learned counsel for the respondent submits that order of the writ court has already been complied with in letter and spirit by passing a formal order dated 8.1.2025.

4. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, going through the contents of the order of the writ court as well as affidavit of compliance, it is undisputed fact that Rs.21,59,418/- was credited in the account of the applicant but interest has not been paid, therefore, affidavit of compliance dated 21.4.2025 is hereby, rejected.

5. List this case on 22.5.2025.

6. Respondent officer is directed to file fresh affidavit of compliance stating therein that interest on the due amount, i.e., Rs.21,59,418/- has been paid to the applicant, failing which, he shall appear before this Court for the purposes of framing of charge."

3. The contention of the appellant's counsel is that in compliance to the judgement dated 15.7.2024 passed by the writ Court in Writ-A No. 5307 of 2024, requisite amount of interest has been paid on 08.01.2025.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has invited our attention to para 15 of the affidavit in support of the application for interim relief, according to which the respondent-petitioner superannuated on 31.7.2016. He was paid the Contributory Provident Fund amount on 26.11.2020, though it should have been paid immediately after his superannuation. Nevertheless keeping in view the relevant Rules and Regulations applicable as the interest on the said amount was restricted under the Regulations/Rules itself to one year period, therefore, interest of Rs. 7,20,627/- was also paid 3 SPLA No. 176 of 2025 on 26.11.2020 on the aforesaid due amount. Thus, a total of Rs. 68,76,293/- was paid to the respondent-petitioner on 26.11.2020.

5. Being aggrieved, the respondent-petitioner filed the above-mentioned writ petition which was allowed inter alia observing that restricting the interest on subscriptions by an employee beyond the period of one year from the date of superannuation amounted to unjust enrichment. Accordingly, the writ Court directed the appellant to ensure payment of interest to the petitioner on subscriptions to the Contributory Provident Fund at the admissible rate from the date of superannuation till the date the sum standing to the credit of the petitioners was actually paid to them. The writ petition was disposed of in terms of the aforesaid observations contained in the judgement rendered in Writ-A No. 5019 of 2024 (Ram Kumar and another vs. State of U.P. and others).

6. Consequent to it, the appellants claim that they paid an amount of Rs. 21,59,418/- which was the additional amount towards interest on the original due amount which was paid on 26.11.2020. This additional amount of interest was paid on 1.8.2025. In view of the above, nothing remained to be complied. Accordingly, a compliance affidavit was filed, but in spite of it, the writ Court after going through the contents of the affidavit of compliance has observed that Rs. 21,59,418/- was credited in the account of the applicant, but interest has not been paid, therefore, affidavit of compliance dated 21.4.2025 was rejected.

7. The contention is that the contempt Court now veritably wants the appellant to pay interest on the aforesaid interest amount of Rs. 21,59,418/- which was not the direction of the writ Court. This observation in the impugned order is beyond jurisdiction of the contempt 4 SPLA No. 176 of 2025 Judge, therefore, this appeal is maintainable and the objection of the respondent-petitioner in this regard to the contrary is not acceptable.

8. Though Shri Jitendra Singh, learned counsel for the respondent insisted that against such routine orders, a special appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 does not lie, we are unable to accept this. The order which has been passed is not a routine order. The contempt Judge has applied his mind and has rejected the affidavit of compliance with the further observation that “Rs. 21,59,418/- was credited in the account of the applicant but interest has not been paid”. Now this amount of Rs. 21,59,418/- is the interest amount on the original amount mentioned herein-above. It appears that the contempt Judge has taken the view that the interest should further be paid on this amount which was paid in 2025, but there is no such direction by the writ Court, the contempt Judge could not have travelled beyond the directions given by the writ Court. This is not to say that the respondent-petitioner cannot raise such a claim separately by initiating appropriate proceedings either before the writ Court or such other Courts as may be permissible in law, but only to say that the contempt Judge should not have travelled beyond the scope of the directions issued by the writ Court.

9. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that not only the appeal is maintainable to this extent, the order impugned to this extent, is liable to be quashed with liberty, however, to respondent-petitioner to raise such claim for additional interest on the belated payment of interest, if otherwise permissible and maintainable as per law, before the appropriate Court/Forum. If the respondent-petitioner disputes the amount paid or wants to raise any other claim in respect thereof, it is open for him to do 5 SPLA No. 176 of 2025 so, but not before the contempt Court. 10 Subject to the aforesaid, the appeal is allowed. The contempt proceedings are hereby dropped.

11. Copy of this order shall be placed on record of the Contempt Application (Civil) No. 792 of 2025. October 14, 2025 Shravan (Rajeev Bharti,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) SHRAVAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench