Sanjay Misra, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Rajendra Prasad Tiwari, learned Counsel for the applicant and Sri M.N. Singh, learned Counsel, who has put in appearance on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 1.
(2.) COUNTER and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties. The Petitioner alleges contempt of the judgment -dated 05.03.2009 passed in the Writ Petition No. 44177 of 2006 (Ved Prakash Pandey v. State of U.P. and Ors.). The aforesaid writ petition was decided on the same terms and conditions as Writ Petition No. 19446 of 2006 had been decided and it was provided that the benefit flowing there from shall be extended to the Petitioner. The judgment dated 21.03.2007 passed in Writ Petition No. 19446 of 2006 (Shree Shankar Bajpayee v. State of U.P. and Ors.) has been filed as Annexure No. 4 to the affidavit supporting this contempt petition. A perusal whereof indicates that the order dated 07.01.2006 passed by the Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad and order dated 04.12.2004 passed by the Nagar Aayukt, Nagar Nigam, were set aside and the Petitioner would be deemed to be reinstated and continuous in service till his retirement. He was also made entitled to be paid all the dues admissible under the service rules and arrears of pay and allowances etc., within 3 months.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner was also terminated along with Shree Shankar Bajpayee on the same date and, therefore, when his writ petition has been decided in the same terms then he would also be entitled to be reinstated and to be paid his salary and all the arrears and allowances. Learned Counsel states that when the opposite parties have not complied with the directions issued by the Writ Court regarding payment of salary and arrears he has filed this contempt petition although he has been reinstated.;