JUDGMENT :

Ajit Kumar, J.

1. Heard Sri Anoop Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Kamlesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners in Contempt Application (Civil) No. 7418 of 2019. Sri Mata Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for State respondent nos. 1 & 2 and Sri Ashish Mishra, learned counsel for newly impleaded opposite party no. 3.

2. By means of this contempt application filed under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 non-compliance of the order dated 24.05.2019 passed in Writ - A No. 61048 of 2016 is complained of.

3. A compliance affidavit has been filed in this case on behalf of the opposite party no. 3 on 28.01.2020 annexing therewith the order dated 03.09.2019, whereby it is claimed that the pension of the applicant has come to be revised w.e.f. 01.01.2006, as per recommendation of the 6th Pay Commission, and thus, it is claimed that the order of writ Court stood complied with in its letter and spirit.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and their arguments raised across the bar and having gone carefully through the order of writ Court, I find that the main issue before the writ Court was as to whether the applicant who belonged to the cadre of Personal Assistant and reached to the stage of Principal Private Secretary/ Head Private Secretary, though retired while working as Deputy Registrar on officiating basis only, could have been denied benefits of 6th pay commission for the purposes of revision in pension, as admissible to Principal Private Secretary/ Head Private Secretary (for short 'PPS/HPS').

5. The writ Court after examining the relevant rules, held that prior to 2001, the pay scale of the Deputy Registrars of the High Court and that of the PPS/HPS was same and therefore, taking recourse to Rule 20(c)(ii) of the rules they were permitted to officiate as Deputy Registrars. It is a case of the applicants that they retired in the relevant years on attaining age of superannuation between years 1999 and 2000 respectively while working as Officiating Deputy Registrars. It is thus, they came to set up a case that they have been treated to have retired as Deputy Registrar instead of PPS/ HPS and consequently they were being denied benefit of revision in pension as per the recommendation made by the 6th Central Pay Commission. The writ Court referred to Rules, 2001, whereby, Rule 20(c)(ii) of the Rules, 1976 came to be repealed w.e.f. 15.11.2001 and the pay scale of PPS/HPS also came to be upgraded. The issue was raised in the writ petition to set up a claim to give revised pension of PPS/HPS as per the recommendation of 6th Pay Commission as if the applicants were made to retire as Deputy Registrar and conveyed the impression that since they had retired as such they were denied pay scale of PPS/HPS and subsequent revision in pension. Accordingly, the Court permitted this to be a pivotal question to be adjudicated upon in the writ petition by framing the point thus:

"The pivotal question on which the claim of the petitioners revolve is as to whether the petitioners were appointed substantively on the post of Deputy Registrar or in the alternative whether petitioners continued to have lien on the post of PPS/HPS upon being appointed on transfer in officiating capacity to the post of Deputy Registrar."

6. Thus, the writ Court proceeded to decide this above question as substantial relief claimed in the writ petition and after long discussion on the point of lien of a person working in officiating capacity and referring to various authorities and placing substantial reliance upon them, the writ Court finally held that applicants who had retired as officiating Deputy Registrar since were not working in a substantive capacity as such, so they held their respective lien in their parent cadre of PPS/HPS even at the time of retirement. Thus, the applicants were held also to be entitled to revised pension admissible to the class of pensioners that retired from the post of PP