1. Heard Sri O.P. Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant through video conferencing.
2. This contempt petition has been filed alleging willful disobedience, by the Executive Engineer Rural Engineering Services, District Unnao, of the judgment and order dated 11.11.2020 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 10889 (S/S) of 2018: Saiyad Husain Jaffer Vs. State of U.P. and others.
3. The relevant part of the order dated 11.11.2020 is being reproduced as under:
"The petition is, thus, allowed and the order dated 26.02.2018 passed by respondent no.2 i.e. Executive Engineer Rural Engineering Services, District Unnao is hereby quashed. The respondent no.2 is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularizing of his services in accordance with the observations made hereinabove in the preceding paragraphs of this judgement and also keeping in view the provisions contained in Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Persons Working on Daily Wages or on Work Charge or on Contract in Government Departments on Group 'C' & Group 'D' Posts (Outside the Purview of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission) Rules, 2016. The said consideration shall be made and final decision thereon shall be taken by the authorities concerned within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
There will be no order as to costs. ."
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that although in compliance of order dated 11.11.2020 the authority has decided the applicant's representation by order dated 08.01.2021, but the applicant's services have been regularized with immediate effect, whereas the applicant's services should have been regularized from much earlier date.
5. A perusal of order dated 11.11.2020, as quoted above, does not show that there was any direction of this Court to regularize the services of the applicant from a particular date. The direction was to consider the case of the petitioner for regularizing of his services.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant also concedes that there was no direction to regularize the services of the applicant from a particular date.
7. The authority has considered the case of the applicant for regularization of his services and has passed an order dated 08.01.2021.
8. I am of the view that any case for contempt is not made out.
9. If the applicant has any grievance with respect to order dated 08.01.2021, it is always open to him to take recourse to the appropriate remedy as may be advised.
10. This contempt petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 24.5.2021 Arvind