JUDGMENT Vivek Kumar Birla, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record. 2. The applicant is alleging disobedience of the order dated 29.11.2012 passed in Writ - C No. 61182 of 2012, M/s Rajan Traders Vs. State of U.P. and others, which is quoted as under: "On 26.11.2012 time was given to the counsel for the bank to obtain instruction. Now instruction has been received on the basis of which arguments were advanced. During course of argument learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the loan was not given under any State-sponsored scheme. It is further admitted that bank has already field civil suit for recovery of the money. In this view of the matter, sending of the recovery certificate and recovery of the amount by issuance of citation as arrears of land revenue cannot be said to be justified in view of the Full Bench decision of this court given in case of Sharda Devi Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2001- UPLBEC-3- 1941. On this short ground this petition succeeds and is allowed. Citation dated 20.10.2012 is quashed. Respondents are free to recover the amount by getting their suit decided with all expedition." 3. The grievance of the applicant is that in spite of communication and full knowledge of the order of this Court dated 29.11.2012 passed in the aforesaid writ petition, the opposite party has written a letter to the employer of the applicant to recover the amount from the salary of the applicant which cannot be done as Original Suit No. 343 of 2012, State Bank of India vs. M/s Rajan Traders is still pending before the Court below. The applicant has informed his employer - the District Panchayat Raj Officer vide his letter dated 29.8.2015 about this order 4. Admittedly, the applicant has not clarified the position to the opposite party about the order of this Court dated 29.11.2012 and till date no deduction from the salary of the applicant has been made in pursuance to the recovery in question. 5. In such view of the matter, at this stage I am not inclined to entertain this contempt petition. 6. The applicant is at liberty to inform the opposite party about this order. At this stage no case for disobedience of the order is made out. 7. The contempt petition is dismissed at this stage. ……………