SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI,J. - (1.) Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri D.N. Mishra, learned standing counsel for the opposite parties.
(2.) On 11.12.2019, this court passed the following order: "Pursuant to the order dated 18.11.2019, an affidavit has been filed by the learned standing counsel on behalf of the opposite party no. 9 dated 10.12.2019 which is taken on record. In paragraph 17 of the affidavit filed today on behalf of the opposite party no. 9, it has been stated as under:- "That in the aforesaid manner the steps were already taken earlier for grant of seniority and consequential benefits to the petitioner and other similarly situated person but in view of the aforesaid facts the same could not be finalized. The deponent has recently joined the post and shall expedite the matter after taking necessary approval / sanction from the State Government. There is no wilful or deliberate disobedience of the order on the part of deponent." This contempt application has been filed alleging wilful disobedience of the order of the Writ-Court dated 24.4.2003 in Writ Petition No. 40316 of 1999 (Ashok Kumar Vs. State of U.P.) whereby the Writ-Court disposed of the writ petition directing as under:- "The contention of Commission that Rules 1991 was binding upon the UP Subordinate Service Selection Commission, which is not tenable. The selection proceeding for the recruitment was illegal but at this stage the selected candidate have already given their joining and only about eleven or twelve posts are still vacant and only there are eleven petitioners who were meritorious as it is proved by perusal of records. Therefore, at this time, the court is not inclined to quash the total recruitment because of public money and time of State machinery have been expended, but equity demands and natural justice also will be solved, if the petitioners are being given appointment on the post of Junior Engineers Minor Irrigation Department, Uttar Pradesh Govt. Lucknow in same selection. Therefore, respondent no. 1 is directed to appoint the petitioners who may approach respondent no. 1 with certified copy of this order. The respondent no. 1 shall give appointment within 15 days to the petitioners with all consequential benefits and seniority etc. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is finally disposed of." Learned standing counsel prays for and is granted three weeks time to enable the respondent no. 1 to comply with the aforesaid order of the Writ-Court dated 24.4.2003, failing which the respondent no. 9 shall remain personally present on the next date fixed for framing of charges, for wilful disobedience of the order of the Writ-Court. List on 9.1.2020 before the appropriate Court. "
(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant states that in compliance to the order of the writ court dated 24.04.2003, the applicant-petitioner was appointed on 10.11.2010 and since then the petitioner is entitled for all consequential benefits, i.e. salary etc.;