Vikram Nath, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) THE Writ Petition No.59247 of 2007, Hari Prakash Singh versus State of U.P. and another was allowed vide judgment and order dated 14.07.2010, whereby the order dated 8.9.2010, passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jhansi cancelling the appointment of the applicant had been set aside and the said authority was directed to reconsider the matter in the light of the observations made in the said judgment. When the applicant was not being reinstated nor any fresh orders were passed, the applicant filed Contempt Application No.168 of 2011, Hari Prakash Singh vs. S.S.P., Jhansi. The said contempt application was disposed of by order dated 19.01.2011 allowing one month's further time to the opposite party to take appropriate decision pursuant to the judgment of the writ court. When despite the service of the said order no decision was taken nor the applicant was restored back in service, the present contempt application was filed in which notices were issued on 28.2.2011. Pursuant thereto an affidavit has been filed by the opposite party on 16.04.2011 in which the only defence taken is that the State of U.P. has filed an intra Court appeal being Special Appeal (D) No.1208 of 2010, in which notices have been issued on the application for condonation of delay on 23.12.2010. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that till date neither the delay has been condoned nor the appeal has been admitted nor is there any interim order in the appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge. It is further submitted that mere pendency of an appeal and that too a defective, the opposite party cannot justify his conduct for non compliance of the directions of the writ court and as such is liable to be punished for non compliance of the judgment of the writ court. Sri Piyush Shukla, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that a reasonable time may be allowed to the opposite party to either obtain an interim order from the Division Bench or to make compliance of the directions of the writ court.
(3.) CONSIDERING the nature of the request made let this matter be listed on 9.1.2012. If by the said date either some interim protection is obtained from the Division Bench or directions of the writ court are complied with, failing on the above two counts the opposite party shall remain present before this Court on the date fixed i.e. 9.1.2012 for framing of charges.;