JUDGMENT B.K. Rathi, J.
1. The petitioners were working as Registration Clerks in the Office of Sub-Registrar, district Jhansi. Their services were terminated in pursuance of the letter dated 27.5.1991 of Inspector General (Registration), with effect from 25.6.1991 by letter issued by the District Registrar (Registration), Jhansi, Annexure-11 to the petition. The termination order was challenged by the petitioners in the High Court in Writ Petition No. 17885 of 1991, which was dismissed. The special appeal preferred by the petitioners was also dismissed. The petitioners preferred special appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India being No. 9136 of 1995 which was allowed on 27.9.1995 and the case was sent back to the High Court with certain directions. Thereafter the special appeal was heard and allowed on 9.9.1999 and the termination order was quashed. The direction was given to the respondent-opposite parties to give consequential benefits to the appellants.
2. The appellants filed the contempt petition alleging that after the special appeal of the appellants was allowed, the order has not been complied with. It is alleged that the appellants were given appointments only as the daily wagers. It was, therefore, prayed that the respondents be punished for disobedience of the order of this Court.
3. Counter-affidavit has been filed by Sri P.K. Jha, Inspector General (Registration), U.P. He has mentioned in the counter-affidavit that the appellants were working as daily wagers in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Jhansi and Immediately after receiving the copy of the judgment of this Court dated 9.9.1999, they were given appointment on 7.12.1999 on daily wages. The petitioners also Joined their services. The copy of the order issued in this regard dated 7.12.1999 has also been filed.
4. I have heard Sri R.B. Slnghal, learned counsel for the petitioners and the standing counsel for the opposite parties.
5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the judgment of the Supreme Court shows that the appellants were duly selected by the Selection Committee on 24.2.1991. On the basis of the said selection, they were given appointment by order dated 18.3.1991, The appointment was approved by the Inspector General (Registration) on 15.4.1991. But, subsequently by order dated 27.5.1991 of Inspector General (Registration), the services of the petitioners were terminated. That termination order was challenged which has been set aside. It is argued that the case of the appellants before the Supreme Court was that they were appointed on regular basis after due selection In accordance with the Rules. That it was observed by the Supreme Court :
"The grievance of the appellants is that their case stands on a different footing inasmuch as they were not employed as Registration Clerks on daily wage basis but had been duly selected by the Selection Committee constituted under the Rules and they had been appointed on regular basis by the District Registrar, district Jhansi, and the said appointment had also been approved by the Inspector General of Registration. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents in the writ petition before the High Court, the factual averments made by the petitioners in the writ petition were not disputed."
6. It has been argued that after the above observation, the Supreme Court remanded the matter for consideration before the High Court only on the point whether the appointment of the petitioners have been made without complying the provisions of Rule 22 of the Subordinate Officers Ministerial Staff (Direct Recruitment) Rules, 1985.
7. This point alone was considered in the special appeal by the Division Bench of this Court in accordance with the scope of the remand order of the Apex Court and it was held by the Division Bench that the appointment is in accordance with the provisions of Rule 22 above. Accordingly, termination order was set aside.
8. It has, therefore, been argued by Shri R.B. Singhal that the petitioners were duly appointed clerks in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Jhansi ; that on this basis, it was found that the termination order was illegal, therefore, they are entitled to be reinstated as regular registration clerks. It has been contended that number of writ petitions were filed and the other writ petitions of the daily wage clerks were dismissed as is apparent from the judgment ; that it was also considered by the Division Bench that the question of regularisation of the petitioners does not arise in accordance with the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Khagesh Kumar and Ors. v. I.G. (Registration) and Ors., 1996 (1) AWC 69 (SC) : JT 1995 (7) SC 545. It has, therefore, been argued that giving appointment to the petitioners as daily wage clerks is not the compliance of the order of this Court.
9. I have considered the arguments. The petitioners have not filed any document to show that they were ever selected on 24.2.1991. They have not filed any document to show that they were issued appointment letters on 18.3.1991 and the appointment was approved by the I.G. (Registration) on 15.4.1991, and they joined in April, 1991 on regular basis. They have not filed any document to show that they were working as regular appointed clerks at the time or their services were terminated as regular clerks.
10. In the absence of these documents and perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court, it appears that the petitioners were only working as Registration Clerks on daily wage basis in the office of Sub-Registrar, district Jhansi. It is also apparent from the first line of the judgment of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 9136 of 1995. Their services were terminated as such as is apparent by Annexures-I and II of the Contempt Petition. It is mentioned that the services of the persons employed in daily wage basis are terminated. By these orders, no regular employee was terminated. It is a different matter that the petitioner might have been selected by the duly constituted Selection Committee, but they have not claimed appointment on the basis of the said selection in the writ petition. At the risk of the repetition, it may also be added that they have not shown that any appointments were given to them in pursuance of the said selection. It appears that inspite of the selection, the petitioners continued to be the Registration Clerks on daily wage basis and their services were terminated as such. The opening line of the judgment of the Apex Court shows that the petitioners worked on that post in the years 1990-91 ;however the selection is alleged to be of the year 1991. The petitioners have suppressed the documents and they have tried to confuse the matter. On the basis of the selection, they cannot say that they were regularly appointed clerks as appointments were never made.
11. It is, therefore, apparent that the petitioners were working only as Registration Clerks on daily wage basis while their services were terminated and that termination order has been set aside. Therefore, they are entitled for the restoration of the status quo ante. The petitioners never claimed in the writ petition that they are entitled to that regular appointment on the basis of the selection nor any such order was passed.
12. In the result, the order of the Division Bench of this Court has been complied with and the status quo ante has been restored by giving the petitioners appointment on daily wage registration clerks in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Jhansi, in compliance of the order.
13. I do not find any ground to proceed against the opposite parties for the contempt of the order of the Court. Therefore, the petition for contempt is dismissed.