JUDGMENT (1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. Petitioner made his claim for the post of "accountant" in the Agricultural Department U. P. Lucknow, now designated as "senior Assistant" (hereinafter referred to as the post in question). To achieve the post in question petitioner has been litigating since 1983. In this process this is the third time when he had to approach this court under Article 226 of the Constitution. (2.) PRESENT petition has been filed by the petitioner for a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite party No. 1 to forthwith abide by the order dated 12-8-1992 of the U. P. Public Service Tribunal and to promote him to the post in question. Since the claim of the petitioner was not accepted by the respondents. They dealt with him contrary to the provisions of Article 16 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner was compelled to approach U. P. Public Service Tribunal III, Lucknow and to file the claim petition No. 398 (F)/iii/90 for redressal of his grievances. The aforesaid claim petition after following the procedure prescribed under law and after hearing the parties was ultimately allowed by the U. P. Public Service Tribunal. The operative portion of the judgment and order dated 12-8-1992 passed by the said Tribunal is quoted below :- "the claim petition is allowed. The opposite parties are directed to consider the petitioner for promotion to the post of senior Clerk/ Accountant if available in accordance with Rules 6 months date of (sic) his promotion became due. Of course subject to his suit ability and eligibility. In case, the petitioner is promoted then he is also entitled to all the consequential benefits like pay, allowance etc. The opposite parties are also directed to consider sanctioning of the benefits of past services rendered by the petitioner in Military Service in accordance with Rules. " (3.) THE copy of the aforesaid award/order was communicated by the petitioner to the respondent No. 1 on 26-8-1992 with a request that the said order be complied with. Thereafter, petitioner has been making application, remainder and representation to the respondents, for enforcement of the said award, but of no avail. Consequently, he was compelled to approach this Court for the reliefs noted above. (4.) SINCE the requisite affidavits have already been exchanged and with the consent of the parties I have heard the case finally. Thereafter, petitioner has been making application, remainder and representation to the respondents, for enforcement of the said award, but of no avail. Consequently, he was compelled to approach this Court for the reliefs noted above. (4.) SINCE the requisite affidavits have already been exchanged and with the consent of the parties I have heard the case finally. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the order dated 12-8-1992 passed by U. P. Public Service Tribunal III, Lucknow has become final and same is binding upon the parties. It was, therefore, obligatory upon the respondents to comply with the said order. In spite of his repeated request without any rhyme or reason, the respondents have failed to obey the said order. The petition is, therefore, liable to be allowed. Learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents, on the hand, contended that on the application made by the petitioner steps were taken for compliance of the order dated 12-8-1992 and the matter was since the pending disposal at Directorate of Agriculture level and now there was no hurdle in compliance of the said order, inasmuch as all necessary formalities for its compliance have already been fulfilled. Learned standing counsel, however, failed to show any justification for keeping the matter pending for more than ten years. (5.) UNDER the facts and circumstances of the case stated above and in view of the fact that the Tribunal itself directed for compliance of its order within 6 months, there is obviously no justification for the respondents not to comply with the order dated 12-8-1992 as the said order has become final and is binding upon them. It was obligatory upon them to comply with and to obey the said order. (6.) FROM what has been stated above, I am constrained to observe that the respondents have failed to discharge their obligation and to give effect to the order dated 12-8-1992. They have also failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in them. Therefore, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed with costs, which is assessed at Rs, 1000. The respondent No. 1 is directed to comply with and enforce the order dated 12-8-1992 passed by U. P. Public Service Tribunal III, Lucknow within a period of one month from the date of production/communication of a certified copy of this order to him. Petition allowed.