- (1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. Heard learned Addi tional Advocate General and learned coun sel for the petitioner on the applications dated 13-1-97 and 7-5-97 filed on behalf of he respondents. By application dated 7-5-97, it has been prayed as under: "it is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the delay showing cause be condoned or in the alternative the time for showing cause be extended and the counter affidavit already filed with the application dated 13-1-1997 be treated as cause shown and the Hon'ble court may be pleased to decide the case on merit. "
(2.) THE brief facts, which are relevant for the disposal of the aforesaid applica tions are that the present writ petition was filed on 22-3-1993 mainly for the following relief: "it is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow this petition and issue: (i) a writ, order or direction including a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay salary to the petitioner in the pay-scale as admittedly recommended by the Director of Agriculture, U. P Lucknow and as agreed to between the petitioners the State Govt. vide its orders dated 9-10-88 and 7-11-88. "; On 22-3-93, the following order was passed by this Court: "learned standing counsel is directed to file a counter affidavit within a period of four weeks. List this writ petition for admission on 23-3-93. " Within the time granted by this Court no counter affidavit was filed. Peti tion again came up for hearing before the Court on 27- 4-93. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties following order was passed: "27-4-93 Hon. M. Katju J. Despite order of this court dated 22-2-93, no counter affidavit has been filed. In the cir cumstances, I issue an interim mandamus direct ing the respondents to pay salary to the petitioner in the pay-scale recommended by the Director of Agriculture, U. P. Lucknow or show cause within three weeks. List on 8- 5-1993. "
(3.) IN spite of the aforesaid order being passed by this court, neither the salary was paid to the petitioner, nor any cause was shown by the respondents by filing counter affidavit. Again the matter came up before this Court on 9-8-95. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this court passed the following order: "9-8-1995-Hon. Binod Kumar Roy,/- Dr. Padia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that repeatedly liberties were granted to the respondents to file a counter affidavit but the respondents have not cared to file the same till to date. Learned counsel further highlighted that even an interim mandamus was issued commanding the respondents to pay salary of the petitioner in accordance with law, as re quested by them, but even that direction has been grossly violated by them. Dr. Padia in the aforementioned back drop submitted that it is a fit case which should be allowed with costs. Sri Sahai, learned standing counsel on the other hand, contended that one more opportunity be granted to file a counter affidavit or in any view of the matter some time may be granted so that the respondents could address this court on merit of this writ application. As sufficient opportunity was already granted earlier to the respondents to file their counter affidavit, I have no hesitation in overrul ing the first request of Sri Sahai. In so far as the second request of Sri Sahai, I adjourn this case to 21st August, 1995 clarifying that this court intends to dispose of this writ application on the merit itself. ";