IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Contempt Petition No. 296 of 2006 Smt. Maya Pant Wife of Sri Janardan Pant, Resident of G.I.C. Road Pithoragarh, District Pithoragarh. …… Petitioner. Versus Hira Lal Gupta, Principal Secretary, Department of Education, U.P. Shasan, Lucknow and six others. …O.P.-Respondents. Sri Syed Nadim, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Bina Pande, learned Standing Counsel (U.P.Govt.) for respondent nos. 1 to 3, 6 & 7. Sri S.Upadhyay, learned Brief Holder for State, counsel for respondent nos. 4 and 5. Date June 17, 2008. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Sri Syed Nadim, learned counsel for the applicant, Smt. Bina Pande, learned Standing Counsel of the U.P.Government for respondent nos. 1 to 3, 6 and 7 and Sri Subhash Upadhyay, Brief Holder of the State, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 4 and 5. This contempt petition has been filed for willful disobedience of this Court’s order dated 8-12-2005 passed in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 280 of 2002 Smt. Maya Pant Vs. State of U.P. and others. The Division Bench of this Court has disposed of the writ petition with the following observations:- “Hence it is provided that let the sanctioned amount of dues to be paid to the petitioner be transferred to the Govt. of Uttaranchal within a period of one month. After the receipt of the aforesaid payment, if any amount is due according to the petitioner, she may make representation to the State of U.P. for the payment. The State of U.P. shall decide the said representation of the 2 petitioner by a speaking order within a period of two months thereafter.” A perusal of the record shows that representation was made by the petitioner before the respondent no.1 and the same was decided by a speaking order on 22-12-2006. Copy of the order has been annexed along with the counter affidavit of respondent no.1, which was filed on 19-2-2007. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 4 and 5 has contended that in paragraph no. 4 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.4, it was stated that the sanctioned amount had been sent to the Treasury, Didihat, therefore, the compliance of the first part of the order had already been made. In the Rejoinder Affidavit, the learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the authority has wrongly calculated the amount. It is not the subject-matter of the contempt petition to examine whether the amount was calculated wrongly or rightly. This fact can only be decided in the fresh writ petition. In the circumstances of the case, the contempt petition deserves to be dismissed. The contempt petition is dismissed. Notices issued to the respondents are discharged. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection of the representation by respondent no.1, she may file fresh writ petition for redressal of her grievance. ( B.S.Verma, J. ) RCP 3 4