Allahabad High Court
VIRENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVversusSANDEEP KAUR AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- VIKAS BUDHWAR
Holding
The contempt application is dismissed because the respondents have complied with the earlier order directing the refund.
Summary
The High Court examined a contempt application filed by Virendra Kumar Srivastav alleging willful defiance of its earlier order dated 27 October 2025 (corrected 17 November 2025) in Writ‑A No. 9777 of 2021, which had quashed recovery orders and directed the respondents to refund Rs 2,20,129. The applicant submitted that the instructed refund had been made and the respondents confirmed the same. The Court noted that the amount had indeed been refunded as per the instructions filed and marked as Appendix ‘A’. Since the directive of the earlier order was fully complied with, the Court held that the contempt petition had no remaining basis. Consequently, the contempt application was consigned to the record, effectively dismissing it.
Issues considered
- Whether the respondent parties willfully defied the earlier order directing refund of Rs 2,20,129.
- Whether the refund has been effected in compliance with the mandamus issued in the earlier writ.
- Whether a contempt proceeding should continue when the order sought to be enforced has been complied with.
Subjects
- contempt of court
- mandamus
- order compliance
- refund of recovery
- service tribunal
- pay fixation
- post‑retirement recovery
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 4817 of 2026
Virendra Kumar Srivastav
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
Sandeep Kaur And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sanjay Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :
Court No. - 53
HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.
1. The present contempt application has been preferred alleging willful
defiance of the order dated 27.10.2025 as corrected on 17.11.2025 passed in
Writ-A No. 9777 of 2021, order whereof is quoted hereinunder.-
"1. Heard Sri S.K. Singh Vashishtha, learned counsel for the writ
petitioner and Sri Rahul Malviya, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
2. A joint statement has been made by learned counsel for the parties that
they do not propose to prefer any affidavit and the writ petition be
decided on the basis of the documents available on record.
3. With the consent of the parties, the present writ petition is being
decided at this stage.
4. The case of the writ petitioner is that he was appointed as an ad hoc
Auditor on 21.07.1976 and his service stood regularized on 01.07.1979.
He was promoted as Senior Auditor on 28.05.1983 and post-completion
of 16 years satisfactory service, he was accorded promotion grade and on
04.01.2009, Assured Career Progression (ACP) was given to the writ
petitioner under the G.O. dated 04.11.2014. Thereafter, the writ
petitioner was promoted as Assistant Audit Officer in Grade Pay
Rs.4600/- and further promoted as District Audit Officer in Grade Pay
Rs.4800/- and by virtue of the G.O. dated 19.10.2012, he was kept in Pay-
Band 3 and Grade Pay Rs.5400/-. It is also the case of the writ petitioner
that by virtue of the order dated 12.08.2015, juniors to the writ petitioner
were recommended Grade Pay of Rs.6600/- in place of Rs.5400/- with
effect from 19.10.2012 and the writ petitioner preferred representation
for according the said benefits and on 07.12.2015, the pay of the writ
petitioner was re-fixed. However, with respect to a dispute between the ad
hoc appointed/ regularized auditors and direct appointed auditors, the
matter traveled to U.P. State Service Tribunal, Lucknow in Claim Petition
No.286/1997, Lok Nath and others vs. State of U.P., in which an order
came to be passed on 02.06.2000 that directly appointed employees
cannot be assigned seniority from a date, when they were not born in the
cadre, against which a Writ Petition No. 1541 of 2000, Lok Nath vs. State
Service Tribunal Lucknow came to be preferred, which was dismissed,
however, on 20.10.2020, the petitioner's pay-scale was re-fixed from
Rs.6600/- to Rs.5400/- and a recovery order came to be passed on
29/30.04.2021 for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,04,397+52800+62930=
CAPL No. 4817 of 2026
2
Rs. 2,20,129/-.
5. Questioning the said order, the present writ petition has been
preferred.
6. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has submitted that the
impugned recovery could not have been made, particularly when the writ
petitioner stood superannuated in the year 2016, he submits that there is
no allegation of fraud, concealment or misrepresentation. Further
submission is that though it is open for the employer to correct the
mistake, but the same should be done while putting the writ petitioner to
notice and not unilaterally post-retirement after five years. He seeks to
rely upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab vs.
Rafeeq Masih, 2015 ACJ 272 and Thomas Daniel vs. State of Kerala and
others, reported in 2022 AIR (SC 2153.
7. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submits that whatever
might be, it is always open for the employer to correct the mistake,
however, he could not dispute the fact that the writ petitioner was not put
to notice and further there is no allegation of fraud, concealment or
misrepresentation.
8. I have heard the submissions so made across the Bar and perused the
record.
9. Facts are not an issue. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was
granted the pay-scale of Rs.6600/-. It is also not in dispute that that
unilaterally, the pay-scale was re-fixed from Rs.6600/- to Rs.5400/-. It is
further not in dispute that there is no allegation of fraud, concealment or
misrepresentation. Furthermore, parties are in agreement that the writ
petitioner is holding a Class-III post and a recovery order has been
passed on 09/21.11.2020 and 29/30.04.2021, post retirement of the writ
petitioner after a period of five years. In view of the admitted facts that
nothing is forthcoming that there had been allegation of fraud,
concealment or misrepresentation and further the recovery has been
sought to be made post retirement which cannot be sustained.
10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The orders dated
09/21.11.2020 and 29/30.04.2021 are quashed.
11. A mandamus is issued to the respondents to refund the amount which
has already been recovered in pursuance of the said orders."
2. Today, instructions have been produced, as per the instructions, the total
amount of Rs. 2,20,129/- has been refunded.
3. According to learned counsel for the applicant, the amount has been
refunded.
4. In view of the above, the present contempt application has outlived its
utility, accordingly, the same is consigned to record.
5. Instructions filed today are taken on record and marked as Appendix 'A'.
(Vikas Budhwar,J.)
September 23, 2026
Rajesh
Digitally signed by :-
RAJESH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…