1. This Court vide judgment and order dated 07.09.2017 passed in Writ Petition No.20981(SS) of 2017 filed by the petitioner disposed of the petition in following terms:-
"Petitioner was employed on ad-hoc basis on 11.9.1986, and has been regularized on 26th December, 2016. She has earlier approached this Court by filing Service Single No. 2142 of 2017, in which her grievance was directed to be examined and considered on 2.5.2017 vide following orders:-
"Heard.
Counsel for the parties consent to disposal of the writ petition today itself.
The grievance of the petitioner is that while other similarly situated persons have been regularized with retrospective effect from the date which they completed three years of service but in case of the petitioner an exception has been made and her regularization has been made effective prospectively without assigning any reason for the differential treatment.
Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order to this extent is arbitrary.
Let the petitioner shall submit a representation in this regard and if there is no legal impediment, the concerned authority shall consider the grievance of the petitioner as aforesaid and take decision within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order is submitted.
The writ petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms. "
Representation of the petitioner has been rejected by the order impugned on 22nd June, 2017. The order has been examined in its entirety, and this Court finds that there is absolutely no consideration made by the authority concerned of petitioner's claim, in light of the orders passed by this Court on 2nd May, 2017. Petitioner is otherwise due to attain the age of superannuation on 30th September, 2017. This Court does not approve the action of the respondents in not applying their mind on the issue for which a specific direction has already been issued by this Court. The authority concerned was expected to have examined the plea of parity set up by the petitioner, viz-a-viz other similarly placed persons who had been regularized upon completion of three years services. The officer concerned before passing the order has not even cared to mention or deal with the aspect which he was expected to examine, and has merely rejected the representation by referring to the Rules. Therefore, the order dated 22nd June, 2017 cannot be sustained.
Learned Standing Counsel submits that the authority concerned shall revisit the issue.
In such circumstances, order dated 22nd June, 2017 is quashed. A direction is issued to the authority concerned to pass a fresh order within two weeks from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order.
Considering the above, writ petition stands disposed off."
2. In pursuance of the notice issued in the present contempt petition, an affidavit of compliance of Mr. Manoj Kumar Rai, Director, Women Welfare, U.P., Lucknow has been filed.
Along with the aforesaid affidavit, a copy of the order dated 20.09.2018 has been placed on record as Annexure-2.
3. The petitioner's case has been revisited and after considering all aspects of the matter and also the cases of similarly situated persons who also approached this Court and in pursuance of the orders passed by this Court, they have been regularized with effect from 2001. The petitioner has also been regularized with effect from 20.12.2010 as in the case of other similarly situated persons named in the aforesaid order.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would have been regularized from 1990 and not from 20.12.2001 from the date when the regularization Rules of 1979 as amended in the year 1989 came into force. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's case is covered by the 1990 regularization Rules.
5. This Court cannot decide all these issues while sitting in the contempt jurisdiction. In pursuance of the direction issued by the writ Court vide order dated 07.09.2017, the petitioner's case has been revisited and she has been regularized with effect from 20.12.2001. The petitioner has got retired from service in 2014.
6. In view thereof, I do not think it proper to keep this contempt petition pending, therefore, the same is disposed of. However, the petitioner is aggrieved in any manner by the order dated 20.09.2018, he shall be at liberty to impugn order dated 20.09.2018 before the competent court/authority, if law so permits.
Order Date :- 30.7.2019 prateek