Government employees are bound to comply with the directions of court orders and failure to do so may amount to contempt of court.

In this application the petitioners have complained of the violation of an order passed by this Court on 2.9.92.

2. Prior to 1986 the petitioners were in service under the State, in the State Water Investigation Directorate Department of Agriculture (Minor Irrigation Wing) (referred to as the Directorate.) The cadre comprised of Lower Division Clerks (LDCs) and Typist-cum-Clerks. There was a single gradation list for this cadre. In 1986, the single or common gradation list was split into two and two separate cadres were created one of Lower Division Clerks and the other of Typist-cum-Clerks.

3. The writ petitioners have been harbouring grievances since 1988 that they should be treated as Clerk-cum-Typist instead of Lower Division Clerk in the Directorate. This was because the promotion to the next higher grade was from both the cadres and following the effect of the split, the Clerk-cum-Typists had better prospects of promotion than the LDCs. It was stated that because of the failure on the part of the respondents to allow the petitioners to be part of the Typist-cum-Clerk cadre, the petitioners had been superseded by their juniors.

4. On 13.1.89 the petitioners moved a writ application being C.O. No. 259(W) of 1989. That writ petition was disposed of by M. Majumdar-J., on 1.8.89 by directing the Secretary, Minor Irrigation and Agriculture Department:

(i) to go into the grievances of the petitioners m effective and objective manner.

(ii) to treat the writ petition as a representation,

(iii) to give the petitioners an opportunity of being heard,

(iv) to consider the entire matter including the basic grievances of the petitioners as also objection of the Department after calling the records from the Directorate; and

(v) to pass a reasoned order within the period of 2 months from the date of communication of the order. The draft Seniority List in the Cadre Clerk-cum-Typist was directed not to be acted upon. The promotions were to be granted on ad hoc basis without conferring any rights upon the promotees. M. Majumdar, J., also directed the Secretary to give hearing to any person who may be effected by the order which may be passed by the Secretary. Two posts were directed to be kept vacant.

5. The basic grievances referred to in the order of M. Majumdar-J. had been listed by the Learned Judge as follows:

"(a) Before preparation of separate gradation list for clerk-cum-typist extracting their names from the combined Gradation List of L.D.C. for catering separate promotional prospect, no option was asked from the LDCs. who would like to remain in the separate cadre of Clark-cum-Typist;

(b) Due to such action of the Directorate it is seen that Sri Maity who was junior to the petitioner no. 2 in the L.D.C. Clerical Cadre has been figured in separate gradation list of clerk-cum-typist at serial No.3 and by virtue of that he is due to receive the benefit of promotion to the post of U.D.C.-cum-typist/clerk-cum-typist (Grade I) superseding the petitioners and other seniors of the combined Gradation list;

(c) There was no separate examination, separate test, separate panel and the petitioners and others including the persons named in Annexure F/1 were selected and enlisted in the panel by way of common test, common seniority and in order of merit in the said panel. There was no Government instruction for separation, and for creation of new cadre from the members of the same empanelled candidates including the petitioners. There was no Government decision for bifurcation and for creating avenues of new promotion to a class of favoured clerk-cum-typists who were born with the petitioners. On the other hand, the petitioners have been kept deprived of their due weightage, due seniority, due empanelment and due promotion. But 'curiously the juniors have been showered with unprecedented favour and seniority to the detriment of the petitioners."

6. By an order dated 24/28.10.91 the Secretary Minor Irrigation being the respondent No. 1 herein held that t