Point of law: When there are two equally consistent possibilities open to the Court, case of contempt is not made out. At the same time, it is permissible for the Court to examine as to whether the steps taken to purportedly comply with the directions of the judgment are in furtherance of its compliance or they tend to defeat the very purpose for which the directions were issued. We can certainly go into the issue as to whether the Government took certain steps in order to implement the directions of this Court and thereafter withdrew those measures and whether it amounts to non-implementation.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The applicant has preferred the instant contempt petition alleging non-compliance of the directions issued by this Hon’ble Court in Writ Petition No. 548 (SB) of 2004 -Dr. RB Saxena Vs. State of U.P and Others (decided on 29/07/2005) whereby certain directions were issued by this Court with regard to the promotion of the petitioner. That similar directions were issued with regard to other persons who had approached the High Court with regard to the promotion and seniority, and similar directions issued by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 1543 (SB) of 2004 and other connected matters. It is necessary to mention that all the directions passed by the High Court were in pursuance to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Writ Petition Civil No. 43 of 1998 - Dr. Chandra Prakash and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another, decided on 04.12.2002.

3. The State Government in pursuance of the judgement in the case of Dr. Chandra Prakash (supra), prepared a revised seniority list and the applicant was given notional promotion on the post of Joint Director.

4. This Court in similar matters regarding non-compliance of the judgment of the High Court passed in pursuance to the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Chandra Prakash (supra), was pleased to consider the entire factual matrix as is involved in the present case and the for the sake of common convenience relevant portion of the judgment passed in Contempt Petition No. 579 of 2008 - Dr. Raghuveer Prasad Dixit and 12 Others Vs. Ms. Neeta Chaudhary and 2 Others (decided on 24.04.2019), is as follows:-

“In this contempt application the applicants are Doctors working in the Post Graduate Medical Services of the State of U.P. and with regard to their grievance relating to the seniority list they had preferred Writ Petition No. 1543 (SB) of 2004 before this Court praying for following reliefs :

"(A) To issue a Writ, Direction or Order in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to consider and promote the petitioners to various posts and grade viz. senior grade pay scale, the grade and post of Joint Director, the grade and post of Additional Director, the grade and post of Director and also the grade and post of Director General from the dates his juniors were promoted on such post and grade as indicated against each in the statement filed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition, if need be, by creating supernumerary posts and consequently to grant and make payment of salary and allowances as admissible under the Rules and given benefits of increments, revision of pay scale etc. as and when due minus the salary/allowances which may have been paid in the aforesaid grade, if any, together with interest at the market rate to be compounded periodically from the date the same became due till the dates of actual payment.

(B) To issue a Writ, Direction, or Order in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties also to make revision of pensionary benefits of petitioners No. 1, 2 and 28 with effect from the dates of their retirement on superannuation on the basis of grant of notional promotions to the grade and posts as mentioned in the statement filed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition and consequently to make payment of arrears of pension, gratuity and commutation as found due together with interest at the market rate to be compounded periodically from the date on which became due till the date of its actual payment."

The Division Bench of this Court by means of order dated 18th September, 2007, disposed of the aforesaid writ petition observing that since the State Government has already finalised the seniority list in pursuance of the judgment and order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the respondents were directed to grant consequential benefits including notional promotion etc. to the petitioners within two months from the date certified copy of the order is produced.

The applica