JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Apoorva Tewari, learned counsel appearing for the applicant and Sri Manjeev Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing counsel appearing for the respondent contemnor.

2. The present contempt petition has been filed alleging non compliance of the judgment and order dated 16.02.2018 passed by the writ Court in Writ Petition No. 731 (SB) of 2013 Inre; Suresh Tiwari Vs. State of U.P and Ors. The writ Court while allowing the petition had quashed two orders dated 19.02.2013 and 08.09.2016 and the respondents were directed to consider the applicant for notional promotion under service rules with all consequential benefits strictly in accordance with the directions issued by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1502 (SB) of 2010 vide judgment and order dated 24.01.2011. Incidentally, the judgment and order dated 24.1.2011 has been reproduced in the judgment of the writ Court dated 16.02.2018 itself.

3. In purported compliance to the judgment of this Court, the respondents have proceeded to pass the order dated 29.03.2019, a copy of which is annexure 2 to the petition whereby the case of the applicant has been rejected. Being aggrieved with the said order instead of filing a fresh petition, the present contempt petition has been filed.

4. This Court had issued notice to the respondents on 09.05.2019. Thereafter, the respondents have filed the short counter affidavit on behalf of respondent no. 1 to which a rejoinder affidavit has also been filed.

5. Sri Apoorva Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the order passed by the writ Court was categoric i.e of considering the case of the applicant for notional promotion under service rules strictly in accordance with the earlier direction of this Court dated 24.01.2011. It is contended that the respondents while proceeding to reject the claim of the applicant for promotion as Engineer-In-Chief have patently erred in law and have gone beyond the judgment of the writ Court inasmuch as they have also considered the Government order dated 23.08.1997 which had also been placed before this Court while filing the counter affidavit in the earlier petition and thus it would be deemed that the writ Court has considered all aspects of the matter and thereafter issued a positive direction for consideration of the case for notional promotion in accordance with service rules and as such, the respondents could not have rejected the claim of the applicant rather should have promoted the applicant as Engineer-In-Chief and in not doing so and rejecting the case of the applicant through the order dated 29.03.2019, the respondents run in contempt of the order passed by the writ Court. It is also contended that once the said grounds as find place in the order dated 29.03.2019 had already been taken by the respondents while rejecting the case of the applicant through the orders dated 19.02.2013 and 08.09.2016 and both the said orders have been quashed by the writ Court, as such it was no longer for the respondents to reiterate the said grounds in the order dated 29.03.2019.

6. On the other hand, Sri Manjeev Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing counsel on the basis of averments contained in the counter affidavit submits that in purported compliance to the directions issued by the writ Court, the respondents have proceeded to consider the case of the applicant for promotion as Engineer-In-Chief but taking into consideration the Government order dated 23.08.1997 and certain other grounds, the case of the applicant has been rejected. It is contended that writ Court has categorically directed the respondents to consider the applicant for notional promotion under service rules. It is said that the direction of the writ Court was for "Consideration" in accordance with the service rules and once the Government order dated 23.08.1997 which had been considered in the order of rejection of the claim of the applicant, has been considered which does not provide for any such notional promotio