CLCON No. 250 of 2009 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Mr. Gopal Narain, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Brief Holder for the State. The applicant contends non-compliance of the order of the writ court dated 30th June, 2009 wherein the order of the Chief Conservator of Forest dated 28th May, 2007 was quashed and the respondent was directed to grant benefit of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. and others Vs. Putti Lal, (2006) 9 SCC 337 and also grant him the minimum pay scale of draughtsman. It is alleged, this part of the order has not been complied with by the opposite party and, consequently, the present contempt application has been filed. The opposite party has filed a counter affidavit alleging that the minimum pay scale is being paid to the applicant and that the order of the writ court has been complied with. In response to the aforesaid, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the order of regularization has not as yet been passed, namely, that the benefit of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Putti Lal (Supra) has not been given to the applicant and, therefore, the opposite party has not as yet complied with the order of the writ court. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is patently erroneous and bereft of merit. The Supreme Court in the case of Putti Lal (Supra) had only directed that minimum scale of pay should be given till such time the order of the regularization was not passed. The Supreme Court had not directed the opposite party to regularize the services of the employee. Similar is the relief granted by the writ court, namely, that the applicant should be given the minimum of pay scale of the post of Draughtsman which is being paid to the applicant. In view of the aforesaid, no willful contempt is made out. The notices are discharged and the contempt application is dismissed. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 17.08.2010 Shiv