Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents.
The instant petition has filed praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to ensure the correct fixation of salary of the petitioner on the post of collection Amin as per his seniority treating him in regular service since 05.06.1986 as per the directions given by this Court.
From perusal of record it is apparent that this Court vide judgement and order dated 27.11.2018, passed in Writ Petition no. 619 (S/S) of 2014 in re: Mohd. Usman Ansari vs State of U.P. & others, a copy of which is annexure 8 to the petition, had directed the respondents to consider and provide all service benefits and retiral dues as permissible as per law to the petitioner treating him to be in regular service with effect from 05.06.1986 in terms of the earlier judgement passed in favour of the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1235 (S/S) of 2011.
The judgement and order dated 27.11.2018 has been affirmed with the dismissal of Special Appeal (defective) no. 383 of 2019 in re: State of U.P. & others vs Mohd. Usman Ansari vide order dated 06.09.2019, a copy of which is annexure 9 to the petition. In pursuance thereof the respondents have passed an order dated 11.09.2019, a copy of which is annexure 10 to the petition, whereby it was indicated that the petitioner would be entitled for retiral benefits in terms of the judgement and order passed by the writ court.
The Contempt Petition no. 765 of 2019 in re: Mohd. Usman Ansari vs Renuka Kumar has been disposed of vide order dated 19.09.2019, a copy of which is annexure 11 to the petition, with a direction to the District Magistrate to release all pensionary benefits to the petitioner.
Learned counsel for petitioner argues that despite the order dated 17.11.2018 having directed the respondents to provide all service benefits to the petitioner treating him to be in regular service since 05.06.1986, it is only the pensionary benefits that has been given to the petitioner and the other service benefits have not been given and hence the present petition.
The Court is of the view that the present petition is not maintainable in as much as once there is already an order passed by the writ court dated 27.11.2018 as affirmed in the special appeal as such the respondents could not have confined the order of the writ court to only payment of retiral benefits. Thus the petitioner has the remedy of filing contempt petition in case the order has not been complied. However as the contempt petition has already been decided vide order dated 19.09.2019 it would be open for the petitioner to file an application for recall before the contempt Court or take other steps for enforcement of the order passed by the writ court dated 27.11.2018.
With these observations the petition is disposed of and consigned to record.
Order Date :- 24.8.2021 J.K. Dinkar