JUDGMENT S.P. Mehrotra, J.
1. The present Contempt Petition, purporting to be under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, has been filed by the petitioner-applicant, inter-alia, praying that the Opposite Party be summoned and punished for having committed contempt of this Court by allegedly flouting the order dated 23-01-1993 passed by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. Nil of 1993, Mohd. Mobin v. State of U.P. and Ors.
2. It is, inter-alia, alleged in the Affidavit accompanying the Contempt Petition that the petitioner-applicant was appointed as part-time Sweeper on consolidated fixed salary of Rs. 50/- per month on 27-5-1987 by the Opposite Party; and that the petitioner-applicant made several representations to the Opposite Party for regularization of his services as Sweeper ; and that when the Opposite Party did not regularize the services of the petitioner-applicant as Sweeper then the petitioner-applicant filed the aforesaid Writ Petition before this Court ; and that this Court decided the said Writ Petition by the judgment and order dated 23-01-1993, and directed the Opposite Party to decide the representation of the petitioner-applicant within the time mentioned in the said judgment and order dated 23-01-1993 ; and that on 8-2-1993, the petitioner-applicant met the Opposite Party and handed over a fresh representation dated 08-02-1993 along with certified copy of the said judgment and order dated 23-01-1993 but the Opposite Party refused to take the same by hand; and that, therefore, on 08-02-1993, the petitioner-applicant sent the representation along with certified copy of the said judgment and order dated 23-01-1993 by Registered Post to the Opposite Party ; and that the Opposite Party received the said Registered Post on 09-02-1993 ; and that five months had passed since men but the Opposite Party had not decided the said representation of the petitioner-applicant, as directed by this Court by the said judgment and order dated 23-01-1993.
3. By the order dated 07-07-1993 passed on the Contempt Petition, notice was directed to be issued to the Opposite Party to show cause as to why proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 be not initiated against him for flouting the said order of this Court dated 23-01-1993.
4. In response to the notice issued to the Opposite Party, pursuant to the said order dated 7-7-1993, the Opposite Party (H.K. Tiwari) filed his Counter Affidavit, sworn on 13th August, 1993.
5. It is, inter-alia, stated in the said Counter Affidavit that a Registered letter sent by the petitioner-applicant was received in the office of the Opposite Party on 09-02-1993 but certified copy of the order of this Court was not received by the said letter, and only a photostat copy of the order was sent by the said letter, and that the office of the Opposite Party approached the Chief Standing Counsel High Court, Allahabad and received a certified copy of the said order dated 23-01-1993 ; and that in compliance of the said order dated 23-01-1993 passed by this Court, the representation of the petitioner-applicant was decided by the Opposite Party by the order dated 03-07-1993 ; and that a copy of the said order dated 03-07-1993 was sent to the petitioner-applicant under Certificate of Posting, Copy of the said order dated 03-07-1993 passed by the Opposite Party on the representation of the petitioner-applicant has been filed as Annexure CA-2 to the said Counter Affidavit.
6. Reasons for the delay in deciding the representation of the petitioner-applicant, pursuant to the said judgment and order dated 23-01-1993 passed by this Court in the aforesaid Writ Petition, have also been stated in the said Counter Affidavit, and it is apparent that the delay was neither wilful nor deliberate.
7. It is, thus, evident that the representation of the petitioner-applicant has already been decided by the Opposite Party by the said order dated 03-07-1993 (Annexure CA2 to the said Counter Affidavit) in compliance with the directions given by this Court in the said order dated 23-01-1993 passed in the aforesaid Writ Petition.
8. The delay in complying with the directions given in the said order dated 23-01-1993 passed in the aforesaid Writ Petition, as held above, was neither deliberate nor wilful.
9. Therefore, the Opposite Party cannot be held guilty of having committed contempt of this Court.
10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, 1 am of the opinion that the show-cause notice, issued to the Opposite Party on the Contempt Petition, is liable to be discharged, and the same is, accordingly, discharged. The Contempt Petition stands disposed of accordingly.