1. Heard Mr. Shobhit Mohan Shukla, representing the petitioners, and Mr. Amrendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel, representing the contemnor-respondents.
2. These contempt petitions have been filed for alleged non-compliance/disobedience of judgment and order dated 02.08.2013 passed in bunch of writ petitions being leading Writ Petition No. 1410 (S/S) of 2010.
3. The writ-Court allowed the writ petitions in terms of the judgment and order dated 26.02.2013 passed by the Division Bench in Special Appeal No.110 of 2013, operative portion of which is extracted herein below:-
"Thus on a careful consideration of rival submissions, we are of the view that learned Single Judge directed the appellants to offer employment in terms of his earlier judgment in Asha Ram's case. However, since the scheme has been framed towards the compliance of Supreme Court's judgment in G. Mohd. Ameenudeen's case, though, thereafter a subsequent Government Order dated 3.10.2007 as aforesaid, was issued, it would have been appropriate for learned Single Judge to issue direction for consideration of the case of respondents- writ petitioners instead of issuing direction to offer employment.
To clarify the position further, though, a Government Order was issued subsequent to the notification of scheme whereby the earlier Government Order accompanying the scheme was modified to some extent but that subsequent Government Order was again made subject to the outcome of pending writ petitions in this Court. Even though, in some of the judgments, the scheme was not taken notice yet in the majority of judgments rendered by learned Single Judges, the directions as contained in the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court rendered in the cases of (i) Union of India vs Dinesh Kumar Saxena and others, reported in 1995 (2) ALJ 1346 and (ii) Government of Tamil Nadu and others vs G. Mohamed Ameenudeen, reported in J.T. 1999(9) SC 173 have been followed.
In that view of the matter when the majority of learned Single Judges have passed the judgments/orders in line with the Supreme Court's judgments, as above, the retrenched census employees can be absorbed only under the scheme framed by the State Government. Hence, the impugned judgment is modified to read that the State Government shall consider the cases of private respondents (writ petitioners) herein on merit and in the light of the scheme as well as Government orders issued towards the compliance of the judgments of Hon'ble the Apex Court as well as the judgments passed by learned Single Judges in line therewith.
This Special Appeal, thus, stands allowed to that extent."
4. From perusal of the above extracted operative portion of the judgment and order, it is evident that the respondents were directed to take up the cases of retrenched census employees for absorption under the scheme framed by the State Government.
5. Pursuant to issuance of contempt notice in Contempt Petition No.701 of 2014, a short counter affidavit of Ms. Archana Agarwal, the then Principal Secretary, Department of General Administration, Government of U.P., Lucknow has been filed, which is on record.
Along with the aforesaid short counter affidavit a copy of Office Memorandum dated 10.09.2014 has been placed on record.
6. Vide the said office memorandum the petitioners' cases have not been found to be fit for absorption.
7. In view of the aforesaid office memorandum dated 10.09.2014, these contempt petitions are disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to challenge the same, if law permits and they are so advised, before the appropriate Forum/Court.
[Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.] Order Date :- 27.8.2019 MVS/-