Vikram Nath, J. - (1.) THE applicant assailed the dismissal order before the U.P. State Public Services Tribunal, which allowed the claim of the applicant and set aside the dismissal order by its award dated 18.7.1991. Against the said award the State filed Writ Petition No. 1307 of 1992 before the Lucknow Bench of this Court. The same was dismissed as infructuous by order dated 6.10.2009. Thereafter as the applicant was not being able to reap the benefits of the order of the Tribunal as affirmed by the High Court and in the meantime he had attained the age of superannuation he filed another writ petition being No. 7499 of 2010. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 11.2.2010 directing the respondents to finalize the post retiral dues of the applicant within three months and whatever amount is found due be paid forthwith without any delay. When the said order was not being complied with the present contempt application was filed in which notices were issued on 27.5.2010.
(2.) AN affidavit of compliance has been filed by Dr. Mukesh Gautam, Director of Agriculture, U.P., Lucknow in September, 2011. According to the said affidavit an order has been passed on 12.9.2011 with regard to the claim of the applicant of his post retiral dues. According to the order dated 12.9.2011 the applicant has been paid 90 percent of the gratuity, the entire amount of the G.P.F., the amount of leave encashment and further provisional pension has been fixed and is being paid to the applicant. However, with regard to the remaining dues i.e. 10 percent of the gratuity, the determination of the final pension, the salary for the period during suspension and dismissal and other dues admissible which have not been paid, it has been stated that the same would be considered after the disposal of the Special Leave to Appeal filed by the State before the Apex Court. The order dated 12.9.2011 does not indicate any other legal impediment in finalizing the remaining claims of the applicant and making payment of the same, except filing of the special leave to appeal. The counsel for the applicant submitted that the writ petition of the State was dismissed by the Division Bench vide judgment and order dated 6.10.2009. The special leave to appeal referred to above was filed in the year 2010 and remained pending in the Registry as defective. He has further referred to an order dated 14.10.2011 whereby the Apex Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 1000/ - on the State -appellant as necessary steps had not been taken in furtherance of the report of the Registry and subject to the payment of the aforesaid amount a week's time was allowed to take steps.
(3.) THUS , apparently the special leave to appeal filed by the State -appellant remained pending in the Registry for removal of defects for almost two years from the date of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court. The defence taken of not finalizing the remaining dues on account of the pendency of the special leave to appeal thus appears to be a very weak defence. It is well settled that until and unless there is an order of restrain passed by the superior court the judgment of the Writ Court needs to be complied with. Accordingly the order passed by the Director, Agriculture on 12.9.2011 is prima facie contrary to the directions issued by the Writ Court. Apparently the finalization of the remaining dues cannot be stalled on account of the filing of the special leave to appeal before the Apex Court. Dr. Mukesh Gautam, Director of Agriculture, U.P., Lucknow is therefore prima facie in contempt and it is a fit case in which the Court should proceed to frame charges against him.;