- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the applicant.
(2.) The applicant is before this Court for a direction to initiate contempt proceeding against the opposite parties for wilful disobedience of the order dated 25. 7. 2019 corrected on 30. 07. 2019 passed in Writ-A No. 11420 of 2019 ( Baijnath Singh and Ors. v. State of U. P. and Ors . ), which for ready reference are quoted as under:- "25. 07. 2019 Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Shailesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Mohd. Shere Ali, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 and 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners were initially appointed as Assistant Teacher in the primary institution run and managed by Basic Shiksha Parishad on different dates between the years 1985 to 1987. Their services are governed by the provisions of the U. P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981. Their claim for promotion to the next higher post fell for consideration as per Rule-19 of the Rules of 1981, and orders were passed in their favour, granting them promotion to the post of headmaster of primary schools and Assistant Teachers of the Junior High School run by Parishad. This promotion was granted to them on 30. 10. 2002. It appears that a subsequent exercise for promotion was also undertaken on 17. 6. 2008, whereby petitioners were further promoted as a headmaster of Junior High School. Total number of 466 candidates were promoted as such. Petitioners alleged that they have joined pursuant to the orders of promotion, but salary was not paid to them. It was next submitted that petitioners approached this Court by filing Writ-A No. 38253 of 2012, which was disposed of vide order dated 7. 8. 2012 with direction to the District Basic Education Officer, Mahrajganj to see and ensure that final decision is taken in the matter and promotional pay scale is accorded to the eligible incumbents, preferably within next two months from the date of production of certified copy of the order. Ultimately claim of the petitioners was examined by the District Basic Education Officer, Mahrajganj and decided vide order dated 29. 5. 2013.
(3.) The petitioners feeling aggrieved by the order dated 29. 5. 2013 challenged the same by filing Writ-A No. 34672 of 2013, which was disposed of vide order dated 17. 4. 2013 with direction to the respondent concerned to consider the claim of the petitioners in light of the observation made by this Court. The operative portion of the order dated 17. 4. 2013 is quoted below:- "Having examined the respective submissions raised at the bar, this Court is of the view that merits of the promotion granted to private respondents need not be gone into on merits, particularly as those persons must have retired by now. They were continuing in employment after having attained the age of superannuation due to grant of sessions benefit. Upon the conclusion of the session, their appointment otherwise would have come to an end. Since about 88 persons were from such category, it is expected that large number of vacancies would have come into existence after their retirement. ;