Devendra Pratap Singh, J. - (1.) THE facts and directions of this Court would be evident from the following order dated 10th of December 2009 which is quoted below: Heard counsel for the parties. The following order was passed on 13.11.2009. Heard counsel for the parties. The applicants were appointed as class III daily wagers in the Office of the Advocate General, U.P. at Allahabad in the year 1999 and they worked continuously without any break. By an order dated 23rd of February, 2005 their services were dispensed with forcing the applicants to prefer writ petition No. 14876 of 2005. After exchange of pleadings, the petition was allowed vide order dated 25.5.2005 by an exhaustive and reasoned order after holding that the applicants were discriminated qua subsequent contract appointees who were also regularized on 16.2.2005 and after directing that the seniority list has to be prepared on the basis of the seniority and absorption has to be made on the basis of the seniority list, it observed that the opposite parties will take remedial measures and directed that the applicants would continue in service. The State preferred Special Appeal No. 704 of 2005 where initially an interim order was passed on 1.6.2005 but the same was vacated on 8.8.2005 holding that the applicants were entitled to press for equal treatment like the other 17 appointees and in pursuance of an order dated 21.11.2006, the applicants were re -inducted in service on 23.11.2006 but yet they were not given parity with those 17 person who were drawing salary of Rs. 7,162/ - per month and when no action was taken upon their representations, they preferred writ petition No. 4145 of 2008 for a mandate to be paid the pay scale of Rs. 3050 -4500 and also for arrears with interest. After exchange of pleadings, the said writ petition was also allowed vide Judgment and order dated 17.7.2008 holding that payment at the rate of Rs. 47.50 per day was against law, it issued a mandate to pay salary to the applicants at par with 17 others from the date of reinstatement i.e. 23.11.2006. Aggrieved, the State preferred Special Appeal No. 1026 of 2008. Both the Special Appeals were taken up together and were disposed of vide order dated 25.8.2008 affirming the Judgment dated 17.7.2008 and 25.5.2005 after holding that there was no intelligible difference between the applicants and those 17 employees who were getting salary in the pay scale. However, despite all these directions in the Judgments, no positive action was taken leading to the filing of the present contempt petition when the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 directed to file their replies by 25.3.2009. However, no reply was filed and instead a Special Leave to appeal was filed before the Apex Court which also came to be dismissed on 6.4.2009 and when the matter was taken up on 27.4.2009 following order was passed. It is admitted by the learned Counsel for the parties that Special Leave to Appeal filed by the State against Judgment and order of this Court passed in Special Appeal Nos. 704 of 2005 and 1026 of 2008 has since been dismissed by order of the Supreme Court dated 6.4.2009. Sri K.R. Singh learned Standing Counsel has stated that the financial approval of the State Government has been received. The funds are available for being paid to the applicant and only limited exercise of preparing the bills and getting the cheques prepared is to be carried out by the office of the Government Advocate, High Court, Allahabad. For the said purpose 15 days time is allowed. List this matter on 19.5.2009. By the said date affidavit of full compliance of the Judgment of this Court may be filed by any one of the opposite parties. A copy of this order be provided to Sri K.R. Singh, learned Standing Counsel free of cost within 48 hours for necessary compliance. Though certain amounts were paid but there was no full compliance and the Court had to pass the following order on 27.5.2009. Sri MC. Chaturvedi, learned Chief Standing Counsel has stated that in compliance with the orders issued by this Court full compliance has been made. Sri Manish Goel, learned Counsel appearing for the applicants, has stated that it is true that certain payments have been made to the applicants only yesterday and that too without giving details as to how the arrears have been calculated and as such he is not in a position to make a statement admitting the statement of the learned Chief Standing Counsel. Sri Goel has further prayed that in case the opposite parties provide a detailed chart with regard to the arrears, manner in which arrears have been calculated the applicants would be in a position to make a statement whether full compliance has been made or not. Request appears to be reasonable. Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Chief Standing Counsel, will ensure that details, manner in which arrears have been calculated shall be provided to each of the applicants separately within a period of two weeks, whereupon the applicants may examine the same and submit their objections, if any, in the meantime by means of an affidavit within a further period of two weeks. List this case on 8th July, 2009. Thus, it is apparent that till date the writ order has not been complied in letter and spirit despite several opportunities given by this Court and even the replies have not been filed. Therefore, the Court is left with no other option but direct the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 to show cause why they should not be tried and punished under Section of the Contempt of Courts Act. The reply should be filed on or before 20.11.2009 after serving a copy on the counsel of the applicants, who may file a reply thereto. Both the opposite parties shall appear in person on the next date. List on 24.11.2009. In pursuance of which compliance affidavits have been filed. Prima facie, the applicants have not been paid bonus as was being paid to the 17 employees after they had been reinstated. The same shall be paid to the applicants also before the next date. The applicants, according to the judgment, are also entitled for continuity of service with regard to seniority etc., relaxation of age and work experience while considering absorption. Let that be done by the next date. List on 12.1.2010 for further orders. The personal presence of the opposite party is dispensed with.
(2.) IT appears that the orders were not complied with in its letter and spirit and again opportunity was granted by the following order dated 19th of July 2010: As the earlier incumbent on the post of Principal Secretary (Law), opposite party No. 1 has since retired, let the new incumbent Shri K.K. Sharma be impleaded as opposite party No. 6. It is urged on behalf of the opposite parties that the orders have been complied but it is disputed by the counsel for the applicant. He has also relied upon a direction of the constitution bench of this Court directing one time regularization of such ad hoc employees and he seeks time to bring on record certain government orders. List this petition on 6.8.2010. It appears that earlier incumbent in the office of opposite party No. 1 had directed for compliance of the aforesaid orders vide his letters dated 29th December 2009, 14th June 2010, 6th July 2010 and 26th July 2010, but yet it appears that the orders have not been complied with. All these orders are annexed with the impleadment application to implead the new incumbent Sri K. Kharma as opposite party No. 6, who has already been impleaded as opposite party No. 6. Learned Standing counsel has accepted notice on his behalf.
(3.) LET a reply be filed by the next date by the new incumbent to show compliance as aforesaid.;