DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J. - (1.) The petitioners' C.M.Appl. No.42424(W) of 2010 filed in Writ Petition No.314(SS) of 1995 for recall of the final order dated 16.12.2009 was disposed of vide order dated 25.05.2011 stating that the dispute in the writ petition filed by the petitioner was covered with the question involved in the Writ Petition No.518(SB) of 2005. It was further said that whatever judgment would be rendered in the Writ Petition No.518(SB) of 2005, the same should be binding on the parties as well as on the department in the case of the petitioners as well.
(2.) This Court decided the Writ Petition No.518(SB) of 2005 vide judgment and order dated 28.01.2013. The operative portion of the judgment and order dated 28.01.2018 passed in Writ Petition No.518(SB) of 2005 reads as under:- "Admittedly, the State Govt. has not taken fresh decision in terms of the mandate of this Court vide order dated 9.9.1999. The order dated 9.9.1999 override the original order dated 30.1.1997 and in its place, the latter order dated 9.9.1999 passed in review petition was substituted. The government should have taken fresh decision in terms of the order dated 9.9.1999. It has not been disputed that the order dated 9.9.1999 attained finality and it has not been set aside by higher forum. Accordingly, it is incumbent on the part of the State Government to take a fresh decision in terms of the order dated 9.9.1999. Learned Standing Counsel submits that it is not necessary for the government to review its order. It was passed in compliance of the original judgment and order (supra). The argument advanced by the learned Standing Counsel seems to be mis-conceived. Since the Division Bench itself has reviewed its earlier judgment, the government is bound to take a fresh decision in the light of the order dated 9.9.1999. In view of above, the writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. A writ in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing the impugned orders dated 15.4.2004 and 18.1.2001 with consequential benefits. A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued directing the State Government to take a fresh decision keeping in view the observation made hereinabove with regard to revised pay-scale to the petitioner, expeditiously, say within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the present order. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs."
(3.) The present contempt petition has been filed after more than six and a half years after judgment and order dated 28.01.2013 passed in Writ Petition No.518(SB) of 2005. The cause of action, if any, arose on 28.01.2013 and thereafter, the petitioner could have filed the contempt petition within a period of one year i.e. limitation provided under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The petitioner has not chosen to file any contempt petition but after order dated 08.01.2019 was passed in contempt Petition No.1618 of 2013 filed by Suresh Kumar Tiwari alleging violation of the judgment and order dated 28.01.2013 passed in Writ Petition No.518(SB) of 2005, the petitioner has come before this Court.;