JUDGMENT S.P. Mehrotra, J.
1. The present contempt petition has been filed under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It is, interalia, prayed that the opposite parties be punished for having committed contempt of this Court by flouting the order dated 10.5.1994 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 20189 of 1989.
2. It is, interalia, stated in the affidavit accompanying the contempt petition that the petitioner applicant and five others [ who were petitioners in the aforesaid Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 20189 of 1989 and who worked as class IV employees (Beldar ) in Vth Circle , Public Works Department, Allahabad] were promoted to the posts of Junior Clerk by the office order dated 17.10.1989; and that by the order dated 25.10.1989 issued by the Superintending Engineer , Vth Circle , Public Works Department, Allahabad, the said order of promotion dated 17.10.1989 was rescinded pursuant to the directions given by the Chief Engineer, South Central Region , Public Works Department, Kanpur by the letter dated 23.10.1989; and that in the circumstances, the petitioner -applicant as well as five others filed the aforesaid Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 20189 of 1989.
3. It is, interalia, further stated in the affidavit accompanying the contempt petition that the said writ petition was allowed by this Court by its order dated 10.5.1994, and the said orders dated 25.10.1989 and 23.10.1989 were quashed.
4. Copy of the said order dated 10.5.1994 has been filed as Annexure 1 to the affidavit accompanying the contempt petition .
5. Relevant portion of the said order dated 10.5.1994 is quoted below:
Accordingly , the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned orders dated 25.10.1989 and 23.10.1989 passed by respondents 1 and 2 respectively (Annexures 8 and 9 respectively) are quashed with liberty reserved to the respondents to pass afresh order after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.
6. The present contempt petition was filed on 12.9.1994 .
7. By the order dated 13.9.1994, notices were directed to be issued to the opposite parties to show -cause as to why they be not punished for the alleged contempt of this Court committed by them by flouting the order dated 10.5.1994 passed in the aforesaid Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 20189 of 1989.
8. In response to the notice issued pursuant to the said order dated 13.9.1994, O.P. Tripathi (wrongly described as O.P. Tiwari in the contempt petition) (opposite party No. 1) put- in appearance and filed his counter affidavit, sworn on 15.12.1994.
9. Similarly B.K. Gupta, (opposite party No. 2) also put- in appearance and filed his counter affidavit, sworn on 15.12.1994.
10. Paragraphs Nos. 4 , 5 and 6 of the said counter affidavit of O.P. Tripathi (opposite party No. 1), which are relevant in the present context, are quoted below:
4. That in the writ petition the impugned order dated 25.10.1989 and 23.10.1989 were quashed and the respondents were rather directed to pass fresh order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners /applicants.
5. That however, incompliance of the order dated 10.5.1994 the petitioners /applicants have been promoted on the post of Junior Clerks and they have also joined the respective posts in the department and are functioning in that capacity. A true photostat copy of the order dated 3.12.1994 promoting the petitioners/applicants is being filed here with and marked as Annexure C.A. 1 to this counter affidavit.
6. That in view of this fact that the petitioners/applicants have been granted promotion and they have joined their respective posts, the order dated 10.5.1994 passed by this Hon'ble Court has been fully complied with and there remains nothing to be done any farther in the matter.
11. Similar averments have been made in the said counter affidavit filed by B.K. Gupta (opposite party No. 2).
12. In view of the averments made in the above -quoted paragraphs of the said counter affidavit filed by O.P. Tripathi (opposite party No. 1) , it is evident that pursuant to the said order dated 10.5.1994 passed in the said writ petition, whereby the said orders dated 25.10.1989 and 23.10.1989 were quashed, the petitioner --applicant as well as five others were given promotion by the Office Memorandum dated 3.12.1994 (Annexure C.A.I to the said counter affidavit filed by the said O.P. Tripathi.
13. Reasons for the delay in complying with the said order dated 10.5.1994 have also been stated in paragraph No. 8 of the said counter affidavit of the O.P. Tripathi, and it is evident that the delay in complying with the said order dated 10.5.1994 is neither wilful nor deliberate. Similar reasons have been given in the said counter affidavit filed by B.K. Gupta (opposite party No. 2).
14. Thus, the directions contained in the said order dated 10.5.1994 have been complied with by the opposite parties.
15. The delay in compliance with the directions given in the said order dated 10.5.1994, as noted above, was neither wilful nor deliberate.
16. As such, the opposite parties cannot be held liable for contempt of this Court, and the show-cause notices issued to the opposite parties are liable to be discharged.
17. Show-cause notices issued to the opposite parties are, accordingly, discharged.
18. The contempt petition stands disposed of accordingly.