Heard.
In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party no. 1 (2 May 2019), it is submitted that the pay fixation of the applicant/petitioner was computed with effect from 1993 and all necessary payments have been made.
This fact is not being disputed by learned counsel for the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is entitled to arrears of salary from 1973 to 2003 i.e. from the date of termination to the date of reinstatement.
On perusal of the writ Court order dated 10 April 2018 passed in Writ-A No. 31318 of 2010, learned counsel for the applicant is unable to show that any specific direction to that effect allowing the arrears of salary w.e.f. 3 January 2003 was passed.
On the contrary, learned counsel for the opposite party submits that the earlier writ petition of the applicant was allowed in terms of Mahendra Nath Tiwari vs. State of U.P. and others (Writ Petition No.13710 of 1999). The matter was taken to the Supreme Court (Civil Appeal No. 2816 of 2007) which came to be decided vide judgment and order dated 17 December 2009, wherein, the Court noted that the impugned judgment does not direct the appellant to pay back wages. The relevant portion of the order reads thus:
"4. This Court has considered the arguments advanced at the Bar and the documents forming part of the appeal. From the judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge, it is evident that while allowing the petition of the respondent, reliance was placed on the decision dated September 26, 1997 rendered in Writ Petition No. 46061 of 1998 filed by Vijay Bahadur Singh against State of U.P.. The said judgment is produced before this Court for perusal. It does not indicate that in the said case, any back wages were awarded to the petitioner. Further, the impugned judgment also does not direct the appellants to pay back wages to the respondent. The fact that the respondent would not be entitled to back wages is accepted by the learned counsel for the respondent. Therefore, the present appeal deserves to be disposed of with clarification that the respondent would not be entitled to back wages.
5. For the foregoing reasons, it is clarified that the respondents would not be entitled to back wages at all. Subject to above referred to clarification, the appeal stands dispose of. There shall be no order as to costs."
Be that as it may, learned counsel for the applicant failed to point out any willful or deliberate disobedience of the writ Court order.
In view thereof, the contempt petition is consigned to record with liberty to the applicant to seek clarification from the writ Court and redress his grievance in an appropriate forum, in accordance with law.
Notice(s), if any, stands discharged.
Order Date :- 3.2.2021 S.Prakash