Allahabad High Court

AMAR NATH YADAVversusSRI VIKAS YADAV DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER GORAKHPUR FOREST DIVISION

Decided: 19 April 2026
Bench: ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL

Holding

No contempt exists because the matter involves a factual dispute already decided by the departmental committee and cannot be adjudicated by the court under Section 12.

Summary

The applicant, Amar Nath Yadav, claimed he was entitled to a minimum salary of Rs. 18,000 per month as a forest employee, alleging that the payments were being diverted to his nephew's bank account. The opposite party, the Divisional Forest Officer, contended that the applicant had not worked since January 2020 and that the nephew was the actual employee receiving the salary. The court noted a factual dispute regarding who was actually performing the duties and observed that a departmental committee had already decided the matter on 30 September 2025. Since the writ petition was still pending and the dispute was factual, the court held it could not adjudicate the issue under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. Consequently, the court found no case for contempt at this stage and disposed of the contempt application, leaving the applicant free to challenge the committee’s order before the writ court.

Issues considered

Whether the alleged non‑payment of salary constitutes contempt of court.
Whether the court can entertain a contempt proceeding when there is a factual dispute about the employee’s service.
Whether Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 applies to the present circumstances.

Legislation cited

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 — s. 12

Subjects

contempt of court
factual dispute
government employee salary
interim order
Section 12
departmental committee
writ petition

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 6858 of 2025

Amar Nath Yadav
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

Sri Vikas Yadav Divisional Forest Officer
Gorakhpur Forest Division .....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pankaj Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :

Court No. - 9
HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.

1. Shri Vikas Yadav, Divisional Forest Officer, Gorakhpur is present in
the Court today, who is identified by Shri Pradeepta Kumar Shahi,
learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.

2. A rejoinder affidavit has been filed on behalf of the applicant, which is
taken on record.

3. Shri Ashok Mehta, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for
the opposite party submits that the applicant is not working and is not
eligible for the payment of minimum of pay scale of Rs. 18,000/- per
month as he has not worked after January, 2020. He further submits that
his nephew is working, who is getting the salary. He further submits that
the rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant is demonstrative of
the fact that the statement of the State Bank of India account which has
been placed along with the rejoinder affidavit reveals that the amount has
not been transferred into the account of the applicant. He further invited
the attention of the Court to Annexure No. 8 to the affidavit filed on
behalf of the opposite party, wherein, the committee so constituted had
called upon the applicant, who had placed his version before the
committee and after due consideration, the committee had taken a
decision on 30.09.2025.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that it is the applicant, who
is working and not his nephew. The opposite party is deliberately sending
CAPL No. 6858 of 2025
2

the money in the account of the nephew and not in the account of the
applicant. It is further contended that not only in the case of the applicant
but in case of other similarly placed persons, the salary is being
transmitted into the accounts of their relatives and not of the persons, who
are working. Specific averment has been made in para 8 of the rejoinder
affidavit filed today.

5. This Court after hearing the applicant's counsel as well as learned
Additional Advocate General find that there exists factual dispute in
respect of the payment of the minimum of wages. The writ Court had
granted a conditional interim order providing for the payment of
minimum of pay scale to the applicant in case he was continuing and
discharging his duty under the Forest Department. As there is factual
dispute as to whether the nephew of the applicant was working or the
applicant, this Court cannot go into such factual dispute and as the matter
has already been decided by the committee constituted by the DFO on
30.09.2025 and the writ petition is still pending consideration and counter
affidavit filed by the State, the matter in proceedings under Section 12 as
to the factual dispute cannot be adjudicated and as such, no case for
contempt is made out at this stage.

6. The contempt application stands disposed of leaving it open to the
applicant to challenge the order dated 30.09.2025 passed by the
committee before the writ Court, if so advised.

7. Contempt notice stands discharged.

(Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.)
April 20, 2026
A. V. Singh

Digitally signed by :-
AJAY VIKRAM SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…