JUDGMENT:

(per Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, J.)

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.

2. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition with the following prayers:

“I. Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 18-8-09 passed by the respondent no. 3 in contravention of the Hon'ble Allahabad High court order dated 08.01.98.

II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to comply the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court order dated 8-1-1998 passed in writ petition no.40404 of 1993.

III. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in the working of the petitioner as Collection Amin at Bhanoli and pay the salary to the petitioner with effect from March 2009 onwards with 20% interest.

IV. Issue, any other order or direction which this Hon'ble High Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances the case.

V. Award cost of the petition to the Petitioner.

VI. Issue a writ, order or direction in nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 20.08.2018 passed by respondent No.2.”

3. Brief facts of the case, as narrated in the writ petition, are that the petitioner was appointed as Seasonal Collection Amin on 31.08.1989 for a period of 30 days and thereafter he worked as Seasonal Collection Amin with some artificial breaks. A Writ Petition No.9557 of 1997 (Umrao Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others) was preferred before the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court which was decided on 16.07.1997 and operative portion of the said order reads as under:

“In view of the un-rebutted allegations in the petition, I am of the opinion, that this petition deserves, to be allowed. Since the petitioners have been performing the same work as the regular Collection Amin and regular collection peon, I direct that they shall be given the same salaries, allowances and other benefits and other facilities as regular Collection Amins and collection peons, as the case may be, on the principle of equal pay for equal work. The State Government is further directed to take a decision of the recommendation of the District Magistrate, Nainital, for creation of posts (copies of which are annexures-1 and 2 to the writ petition) expeditiously, and till then the services of the petitioners shall be continued without any artificial break in service.

The petition is allowed.”

4. The petitioner thereafter preferred a writ petition No.40404 of 1993 and the said writ petition was decided in terms of the judgment passed in Umrao Singh’s case on 08.01.1998. In pursuance to the order passed in the above-mentioned writ petition filed by the petitioner an order dated 15.09.2008 was passed by the District Magistrate, Almora by which petitioner was provided the benefit as is available to a regular employee from the date of issuance of the order in his case by the High Court i.e. from 08.01.1998.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that when a post of regular collection Amin fell vacant on 01.08.1998 on retirement of Ramesh Lal Sah then the petitioner submitted a representation for consideration of his case for appointment as a regular collection Amin. As the case of the petitioner was not considered by the respondents for appointment as a regular collection Amin as such the petitioner filed WPSB No.233 of 2003 which was decided on 02.04.2003 and the respondents were directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as regular collection Amin.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner was, however, rejected vide order dated 02.05.2003. The petitioner had filed a contempt petition no.158 of 2003 for non-compliance of the order and in the said contempt petition a direction was issued by the Court on 28.01.2004 directing the District Magistrate to reconsider representation of the petitioner and to pass a fresh order and the District Magistrate Almora on 16.02.2004 ag