Mahendra Dayal, J. - (1.) In all the aforesaid contempt applications, the same prayer has been made and the controversy involved is also similar therefore all these contempt petitions are being decided together.
(2.) I have heard Shri Prashant Chandra, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri S.K. Singh Kalhans, Shri Manik Sinha, Shri Vaibhav Upadhyaya, Shri C.P. Mani Triapthi and Dr. V.K. Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and the learned Advocate General, assisted by Shri Pankaj Khare, learned Standing Counsel and also perused the record.
(3.) The petitioners were engaged as Kurk Amins to work on commission basis. They were given facility of the employees of State Government. However, in the year 1979, by means of an office order, they were deprived of the facilities given to them in the year 1978. They were compelled to work on commission basis. One of the Kurk Amins, namely, Hashmatullah filed Writ Petition No. 2795 of 1981, which was disposed of on 12.4.1989. It is not disputed that the benefit of the order dated 12.4.1989 was given only to the petitioner of Writ Petition No. 2795 (S/S) of 1981. Thereafter some of the Kurk Amins filed Writ Petition No. 10400 (S/S) of 1989, which was disposed of on 7.12.1989. It was held in this case that the Collection Amins even if working on commission basis, would be treated as Government Servants. This order was based on another order passed in Writ Petition No. 738(S/S) of 1980. The State Government challenged this order before the Hon'ble Apex Court and after hearing the parties, the matter was remitted back to this Court with the observations that the Collection Amins who were appointed on salary basis would be treated as State Government employees but the Collection Amins who were appointed on commission basis, their status would be determined by this Court and for this limited purpose the matter was remitted back to this Court. The Association of Collection Amins, namely, U.P. Sahkari Sangrah Karmchari Sangh filed Writ Petition No. 129 of 1992. However the issue involved was under consideration before this Court in Special Appeal No. 15 of 1994 and connected Special Appeal No. 39 of 1994. The Special Appeal was decided on 5.5.1995 and it was held that the Collection Amins appointed on commission basis would also be treated as civil servants and would be given benefit as that of State employees. The state Government again challenged this order before the Hon'ble Apex Court by filing SLP No. 8467 of 1995. The similar issue was pending before this Court in Writ Petition No. 2829(S/B) of 1992. This matter as to whether the Collection Amins appointed on commission basis would be treated as Government employees or not, was referred to larger Bench by means of an order dated 22.3.1996. This order dated 22.3.1996 was also challenged by the State in Special Appeal No. 129/1996 but the special appeal was dismissed on 4.4.1997. In this way the mater was finally disposed of. The writ petition which was remanded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, merged with the writ petition filed by U.P. Sahkari Sangrah Karmchari Sangh. The order passed by the Division Bench in the year 1997 was again challenged by the State before the Hon'ble Apex Court, which was decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 20.3.2001 and the Special Leave to Appeal filed by the State was dismissed and the judgment of this Court was upheld. Thus after the final decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 20.3.2001, it was settled that the Collection Amins even if appointed on commission basis, would be treated as Government employees. When the order was not complied with, the contempt petition was filed before this Court in the year 2001. During pendency of this contempt petition, the State Government framed rules on 30.10.2002. The Rules were named as U.P. Sahkari Sangrah Nidhi Amin and Annya Sewa Niyamawali 2002. The State Government by framing of the aforesaid rules, discriminated amongst the Collection Amins appointed on commission basis and the Collection Amins appointed on salary basis. Feeling aggrieved by framing of Rules, another Contempt Petition No. 110 and 111 of 2003 was filed along with another Contempt Petition No.s 490 and 491 of 2004. In these contempt petitions, the State Government admitted this mistake and it was assured before the Court that a suitable amendment would be brought out in the definition of the cadre of service. The association of the petitioners thereafter preferred representation for compliance of the aforesaid order. However, instead of complying with the directions of the Court, the Special Appeal (Defective) No. 486 of 2014 was filed. When the order dated 23.8.1990 was passed and the writ petition was finally decided on merit, the State sought recall of the order dated 23.8.1990 and ultimately the said application for recall was also dismissed on 8.5.2009. Thereafter the State Government filed another application for recall of the part of the order dated 27.9.2013. This application was also rejected on 17.2.2017.;