S.U.KHAN, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) PETITIONER who was working as Scientific Assistant in the Irrigation Research Institute, Rurkee since 1973 retired on 31.07.1998. When petitioner was in service, he filed writ petition no.12586 of 1990 at Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court asserting that his juniors had been promoted hence he should also be promoted to the post of Research Supervisor. The said writ petition was allowed on 17.09.2004. Copy of the judgment is Annexure 2 to the writ petition. From the said judgment it appears that petitioner had been promoted on 23.01.1993. The petitioner claimed that he should be given notional promotion on the post of Research Supervisor from the date when his juniors were promoted (para 2 of the said judgment). Operative portion of the said judgment contained in para 7 of the same is quoted below: "Opposite parties are directed to reconsider the petitioner's case in accordance to rules for promotion on the post of Research Supervisor from the date when juniors were promoted and in case the petitioner is found fit for promotion from the retrospective effect the opposite parties shall grant notional promotion for the purpose of pensionary benefits." Thereafter, the opposite parties granted relief to the petitioner. About Rs.39,000/- were paid on 25.08.2005 and about Rs.19,000/- in August/September 2007. These payments have been admitted by learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner was not still satisfied and claimed that he must be paid arrears of salary also. In that regard petitioner filed Civil Misc. Contempt case no.781(c) of 2005 before Lucknow Bench of this Court which was dismissed on 25.08.2006. Copy of the said order is Annexure 8. Last three paragraphs of order dated 25.08.2006 dismissing the Contempt Petition are quoted below:- "The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is also entitled to difference of pay and to all promotional dues with effect from 18.08.1974 till he was given actual promotion in the year 1993. While going through the judgment of the Court in the aforesaid writ petition, it appears that the opposite parties were issued direction by the Court to reconsider the promotion and grant notional promotion to the petitioner if it was found that he was fit for promotion from the retrospective effect. The Court clarified this order by stating that opposite parties shall grant notional promotion for the purpose of pensionary benefits. That being the position, I am of the view that the claim of the petitioner that he is entitled to promotional pay from 18.8.1974 is not acceptable as the Court has not granted the same to him. Rest of the order of the Court has already been complied with and therefore, this petition has no force and is accordingly dismissed. 25.08.2006" Learned counsel for the petitioner has very conveniently termed the above order as wrong.
(3.) Petitioner was still not satisfied hence he filed another writ petition at Allahabad, being writ petition no.4202 of 2007 contending that the judgment dated 17.09.2004 had not been complied with in letter and spirit. Writ petition was disposed of on 29.01.2007 with the direction to the respondents to decide petitioner's representation. 6. Petitioner was still not satisfied, hence he filed contempt petition no.2425 of 2007 at Allahabad which was disposed of on 29.01.2007 with the direction to the respondent to comply with the order dated 29.01.2007. 7. Petitioner's representation had already been decided on 09.04.2007. Petitioner asserts that copy of decision was received by him on 10.08.2007. The said order, copy of which is Annexure 1 to the writ petition, has been challenged through this writ petition. In the said order it has been mentioned that payment has already been made to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner during argument admitted that an amount of about Rs.1,30,000/- has been paid to the petitioner. The other prayer is that the arrears of salary from 18.08.1974 to 23.1.1992 be directed to be paid to the petitioner. The writ petition is utterly devoid of merit. In the judgment dated 17.09.2004 the only benefit granted to the petitioner was that notional promotion only and only for purposes of payment of pensionary benefits must be granted to the petitioner. The order dated 25.08.2006 passed in contempt case no.781 of 2005 (supra) is not only binding upon the petitioner but is perfectly correct. Through the said order basic order, dated 17.09.2004 has very correctly been interpreted. The Court strongly disapproves the action of the petitioner in filing writ petition after petition and contempt after contempt. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed with special cost of Rs.20,000/-. The cost must be deducted from petitioner's retiral dues. Office is directed to supply a copy of this order free of cost to Sri S.P. Misra, learned Standing Counsel within a week.;