1 Contempt Case No.851/2011 12.12.2011 Shri Rakesh Pal, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Vivek Patwa, Dy, GA for the non-applicants. Perused the reply filed by the Non-applicants. This second contempt petition is filed by the applicant for noncompliance of order passed in W.P. No.9321/10(S) on 4.8.2010, whereby writ Court directed the non-applicants to consider the claim of the petitioner for counting the period of pre-absorption (the period from the date of initial appointment) for the purpose of fixation of the pay and to take final decision in this regard, in view of the judgment of Smt Champa Soni (2001) 1 MPST 2099 (DB) and order dated 22.1.2004 passed in W.P. No.14164/2003 Hardas Parashar v/s State of M.P. & Ors., decided by the Main Seat. The writ Court further directed that appropriate order may be passed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order and if the applicant is found to be entitled for the benefits his pension be re- fixed accordingly and arrears be released to him with interest @ 7.5% per annum. Since the order passed by the writ Court was duly communicated to the non-applicants but in spite of communication no order was passed and, therefore, the applicant filed Contempt petition No.357/11 in which the learned contempt Court directed the non-applicants to comply with the order within a period of three months from 5.5.2011 under intimation to the Registrar of this Court, failing which the respondent No.3 i.e., Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat, Ujjain shall be liable tot pay interest @ 12% pr annum on the defaulted amount for which the State shall not be liable. It is also made clear that if the petitioners are compelled to approach this Court again for the same relief then the case shall be taken up seriously. As per record this order was communicated to the non- applicants along with letters dated 30.5.11 and 18.8.1, but no order was passed within three months from the date of receipt of the order passed in the contempt petition and, therefore, the applicant again 2 filed this second contempt petition for taking appropriate action against the non-applicants. Learned counsel for the non-applicants filed its reply and submitted that the writ appeals were filed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge, which was disposed of on 22.6.2011 by making following directions: “Counsel for the State Govt. has candidly stated that the common question is involved in all the three appeals and the appellant State was aggrieved by the claim of the respondents for counting the period prior to their absorption i.e. from 1982 till retirement for the purpose of fixation of the pay/pension. The learned single Judge of this Court had directed in all the three petitions that the petition filed by the petitioner should be considered by keeping in view the case of State of M.P. and others v. Smt. Champa Soni [2001 (1) MPHT 208] and also in view of the order dated 22.1.04 passed in W.P. No.14164/2003 (Hardas Parashar v. State of M.P. and others). However, the matter was placed before the Division Bench of this Court and this Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.172/2011 directed that the State Govt. should not only keep in mind the case of Smt. Champa Soni (supra) but shall also seek guidance from the matter of State of Punjab and others v. Dev Dutt Kaushal AIR 1996 SC 85, State of Punjab and others v. Darshan Singh & others (2001) 9 SCC 321 and Dhyan Singh and others v. State of Haryana & others (2002) 10 SCC 656, while deciding the representation of the similarly situated employees. Counsel for the appellant State submits that he would be satisfied with the appropriate modification in the order passed in these cases also. We find that it is trite to state that when the Apex Court has given certain directions regarding the conditions of services of similar employees; the State is bound to follow the same and separate orders need not be passed in each and every case. However, be that as it may, the prayer of the counsel for the appellant-State appears to be reasonable and hence we are inclined to dispose of these three writ appeals by upholding the judgments of the learned Single Judge yet directing the appellants to consider not only the judgments passed in the case of Smt Champa Soni (supra) and Hardas Parashar (supra), but also to take into consideration the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Dev Dutt Kaushal, Darshan Singh and Dhyan Singh (supra) and decide the controversy, in accordance with law. With these directions the appeals are disposed of.” It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the non-applicants 3 that the no order has been passed by the non-applicants and prays for further four weeks' time to comply the order dated 4.8.2010. It is also submitted that in writ appeal no stay was granted by the Division Bench. In view of the above, the non-applicants are bound to comply the order passed by this Court.' Considering these facts, the prayer for grant of four weeks' time is allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- by the non- applicants. They shall also comply the order passed earlier by which this Court granted interest on the defaulted amount to the applicant. With the aforesaid the contempt petition stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (P.K. Jaiswal, J.) rcs*