B. K. Rathi, J. - (1.) -The petitioner was given seasonal appointment in the Food and Civil Supplies Department during the year 1980. She worked as Stenographer. However, her services were discontinued wherefore, she filed Writ Petition No. 10734 of 1996 in this Court which was dismissed. Against that order she preferred Special Appeal No. 329 of 1996 which was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 23.4.1996 by order Annexure-1 to this contempt petition. The following are the directions given in the special appeal. "It is not disputed before us that though the appellant was given a seasonal employment during 1980-81 she continued as Stenographer in the department till 18.8.1993 when she was denied to work. Therefore, it is not reasonable to hold that the appellant is not entitled to the priority consideration for fresh employment on the basis of the Government order dated 13.10.1982. On consideration of the entire matter we dispose of this special appeal with the order that if the appellant filed an application for appointment in the future vacancy of the post (Stenographer) in the department, her application will be considered by the competent authority in accordance with the Government order dated 13.10.1982 (Annexure-1 to the stay application)."
(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner that the above order have not been complied with and she has not been given appointment, therefore, she has filed the contempt petition. Notice of the contempt petition was issued and counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged. The last counter-affidavit has been filed by V. V. Singh Bisen, Commissioner, Food and Civil Supplies, U. P., Lucknow Opposite Party No. 2. He alleged that the order of this Court has been complied with. I have heard Shri R. B. Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri U. N. Sharma, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 and perused the entire record as well as the order passed in this case.
(3.) IT has been argued by Sri R. B. Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of this Court has not been complied with in so far as that her application has not been considered by the competent authority for appointment in any vacancy caused after the order in accordance with the Government order dated 13.10.1982. In reply Shri U. N. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has firstly argued that a fresh Writ Petition No. 44659 of 1998 seeking identical relief as was sought in the earlier Writ Petition No. 10734 of 1996, has been filed by the petitioner. That, therefore, the matter will be considered in the writ petition and this contempt petition has become infructuous. This argument of the learned counsel is not correct. The record of Writ Petition No. 44659 of 1998 has been attached with this contempt petition. This writ petition has been disposed of finally by order dated 15.3.1999 and it has been ordered that this writ petition shall be deemed to be an application in the contempt petition. Therefore, the writ petition has not become infructuous due to the filing of fresh writ petition.;