N. N. Mathur, J. - (1.) :- Appellant Satya Narain, a Class IV employee, seeking promotion on the post of Lower Division Clerk, was granted relief by the order of this court dated 27.1.1993 directing the respondents to consider his case for promotion in case any person junior to him, has been promoted during the year 1975 to 1981. The order was not complied with. Hence, the appellant invoked the contempt jurisdiction of this Court under Contempt of Courts Act 1971 but the same was declined on the ground of limitation. Thus, he filed a second writ petition seeking direction to give effect to the order of this court dated 27.1.1993 passed in earlier writ petition. The learned Single Judge rejected the writ petition, relegating the petitioner to remedy of contempt petition under Article 215 of the Constitution of India. The brief impugned order dated 10.8.2001 reads as follows : "In view of the judgment of this court in Anwar Khan v. State of Raj., 1999 RLW 674, the petition is not maintainable. The petition is, therefore, dismissed."
(2.) In the said case, the petitioner Anwar Khan was initially appointed on daily wages in the year 1984 as a Class IV employee. He filed a writ petition seeking direction for regularisation and grant of equal pay for equal work. The writ petition was partly allowed by the judgment dated 6.9.1993. The Court directed that the petitioner will be entitled to get equal wages as being given to the similarly situated Class IV employees. The said order as not complied with. The application for contempt was also rejected. Thus, petitioner filed a subsequent petition seeking direction to respondents to comply with the order of this Court passed in earlier writ petition, i.e., the order dated 6.9.1993. The learned Single Judge hearing the writ petition in para 5 of the judgment posed the question as follows : "Whether the present writ petition is. maintainable or not, as the relief claimed by the petitioner in the present writ petition, had already been sought by him in the earlier writ petition decided on 6.9.1993."
(3.) The learned Single Judge answered the question posed against the petitioner. The relevant observations of the court are extract as follows : "(i) That petitioner ought to have approached the Court within limitation provided under the Contempt of Courts Act 1971. Even if the limitation has expired, the petitioner can still approach to the Court under Article 215 of the Constitution within a reasonable period. (ii) That the writ petition cannot be the appropriate and effective remedy which can be entertained by the Court to enforce its judgment.";