Sanjay Misra, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri P.N. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the applicant.
(2.) ACCORDING to the applicant, the applicant filed Writ Petition No. 11522 of 1992 (Yogendra Nath Tripathi v. Jalkal Abhiyanta Nagar Palika Basti and Ors.) wherein by an order dated 17.02.2010 the writ petition was disposed of finally in the same terms and conditions as the order dated 08.12.2005 passed in Writ Petition No. 10509 of 1997. The order dated 08.12.2005 passed in Writ Petition No. 10509 of 1997 has been filed as Annexure No. 2 to this affidavit filed alongwith this contempt petition. A perusal of the order indicates that the Respondents No. 1 & 2 of that writ petition were directed to consider the case of appointment of the Petitioner under Rule 31 of the U.P. Palika (Centralized Service) Rules, 1966, within a period of three months from the date of production of the certified copy of the order passed by the Court and further to accord all the benefits of the Petitioner which have been extended to the persons of the same list. Learned Counsel states that against the aforesaid order dated 08.12.2005, Special Appeal was preferred which was rejected and the Respondents therein went up to the Apex Court where their Special Leave Petition (SLP) was also dismissed and whereafter they regularized the services of the Petitioner of Writ Petition No. 10509 of 1997.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel states that in the present case also after the direction of the Writ Court in same terms and conditions as given in Writ Petition No. 10509 of 1997 the opposite parties have been directed to consider the claim of the Petitioners herein. He states that by the order dated 12.10.2010 filed as Annexure No. 9 to the affidavit, supporting this contempt application, the opposite parties have rejected the claim of the Petitioner on the ground that in the earlier case the order dated 08.12.2005 passed by the Writ Court in Writ Petition No. 10509 of 1997 was affirmed by the Apex Court and hence they extended the benefit to the Petitioners of that writ petition. According to learned Counsel, in the present case the opposite party has rejected the representation of the Petitioner by the order dated 12.10.2010 and, therefore, it is a disobedience of the directions passed by the Writ Court.;