( 1 ) A classic case of the respondents trying to wriggle out from the order passed by the Supreme Court of India. The petitioners have filed this writ petition, inter alia, praying that directions passed by the Supreme Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 473/88 dated 27. 8. 1999 be complied with by the respondent in a time bound manner. The second prayer of the petitioners are that they may be paid the same salary and allowances at par with the Central Government employees appointed in Group c staff. The petitioners are working in the office of the Official Liquidator attached to the High Court of Delhi. To understand the controversy it may be noted that certain writ petitions were filed in the High Court of Calcutta and Kerala by the staff working with the office of Court Liquidator in Calcutta and Official Liquidator in Kerala. Petitions were allowed by the learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court. Respondents preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court. The Division Bench also affirmed the judgment of Calcutta High Court. It is important to quote from the judgment of the Supreme Court as follows :

"the learned Judges, after carefully considering the rival submissions, found that the respondent Nos. 2 to 64 had been working for the last 20-25 years. Their service was neither regularised nor they were given the status of Government employees; their pay-scales were not inconformity with that of the pay-scales of their counterparts in various other Departments/offices; that they were given the status of Government employees; their pay-scales were not inconformity with that of the pay-scales of their counterparts in various other Department/offices, that they were given very low scale of pay without any permanent or quasi-permanent status and they were required to retire on attaining the age of 58 years but empty handed. The Division Bench also found that the appellants could not substantiate the contention that the respondents were not in work of perennial nature and as such cannot be absorbed as Central Government employees. The learned Judges further found that there was no reasonable basis for making classification or denial of equal treatment between the employees of the Court Liquidator and the Official Liquidator when they were found to turn out the same and similar nature of work. Ultimately, the learned Judges found that the respondents herein could not be denied the benefits and status which were enjoyed by their counterparts employed in the office of Official Liquidator. It was further held that there was no rational basis for making classification between the two groups of employees and, therefore, the respondents were entitled to be equally treated and all the benefits as were conferred and enjoyed by the employees attached to the Office of Official Liquidator should be extended to them as well. In the light of the findings as noticed above, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellants. Hence the present appeal. "

( 2 ) SIMILARLY, petition was filed before the Division Bench in Kerala High Court and Kerala High Court also took similar view as that of Calcutta High Court. The respondents preferred a Civil Appeal No. 5642/94 in the Supreme Court of India. In the meanwhile, some of the persons who are working with the office of the Official Liquidator in Delhi also filed a Civil Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India directly in the Supreme Court and all these matters (Writ Petition (C) No. 473/88 and Civil Appeals No. 5642/94 and Civil Appeal 5677/94 were disposed of by the Supreme Court by a common order. The operative part of the order of the Supreme Court is in the following terms:-

"however, we want to given an opportunity to the appellants in the interest of justice and to balance the equities between the parties to come forward to accept and act on the first option given in the additional affidavit, as extracted above, a