Hon’ble Anil Kumar, J.—Heard Sri G.C.Verma, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri A.M. Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Applicants approached this Court for redressal of their grievances by filing Writ Petition No. 3148(SS) of 2010 (Jay Bahadur Singh and another v. State of U.P. And others). On 6.8.2010, an order passed quoted hereinbelow :

“Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

Notice on behalf of opposite parties No. 1 to 3 has been accepted by the learned Standing Counsel while notice on behalf of opposite parties No. 4 and 5 has been accepted by Sri A.M. Tripathi, who pray for and are granted four weeks’ time for filing counter-affidavit. Petitioners may file rejoinder affidavit within two weeks thereafter.

List after expiry of the aforesaid period.

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners were appointed in accordance with the sanctioned strength which was prevailing prior to the issuance of the Government Order dated 2.7.1990 but at the time when the Institution was brought under the grant-in-aid, approval was granted in respect of three posts by the Government as well but later on while granting approval, the BSA has accorded approval of salary in respect of one post only and has declined to make payment in favour of the other persons.

The Government Order in this regard is very clear and it stipulates that the sanctioned strength of class-IV employees prior to the issuance of the Government Order was three in Junior High Schools, therefore, they will continue in the same capacity. As and when the said class-IV employees are retired, the post will come to an end and one post will continue in respect of Junior High School. Therefore, the claim of the opposite parties that salary cannot be paid to the petitioners is devoid of merit.

Considering the aforesaid facts, operation of the order dated 17.2.2010, contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition, shall remain stayed and the petitioners will be paid their salary.”

3. As per the version of the applicants, the same is not complied so the present contempt petition filed under Section 12 of the Contempt Court Act.

4. On 7.10.2010, notices issued to the respondents, thereafter a short counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 2/Ashok Nath Tewari, District Basic Education Officer, Pratapgarh. In Paragraph No. 6 it is stated as under :

“That the counter-affidavit alongwith the dismissal of the writ petition as well as application for vacation of the interim order has already been moved and no rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioners in the said writ petition and the same is pending under consideration before this Hon’ble Court.”

5. On 20.1.2011, on behalf of the applicants, rejoinder-affidavit filed, and in Paragraph No. 5 stated as under :

“That in reply for the contents of Paragraph 6 of the short counter-affidavit it is submitted that, the counter-affidavit has been filed in the writ petition after filing the contempt petition and issuing notices to the opposite parties by this Hon’ble Court. In the counter-affidavit the opposite parties have reiterated the facts which have been mentioned in the order dated 17.2.2010 and, the said order has been stayed by this Hon’ble Court after hearing to the opposite parties in the writ petition, as evident from the orders passed by this Hon’ble Court on 19.5.2010 and subsequent thereto, therefore, the filing of the counter-affidavit is not going to change the position in the present contempt petition, it is further submitted that the rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioners in the writ petition.”

6. In view of the above factual background, Sri G.C. Verma, learned counsel for the applicants submits that order dated 6.8.2010 has been passed by the Writ Court after hearing the parties and taking into consideration the Government Order dated 2.7.1990, so there is no justification or reason on the part of the respondents not to pay the