B. K. RATHI, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act to punish the opposite party for disobeying the order of this Court, dated 21. 2. 1998. passed in Writ Petition No. 6831 of 1998. ( 2 ) I have heard Sri Sharad Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel. Facts of the case are as follows : ( 3 ) THE applicant is a retrenched employee of Auto Tractors Limited, Pratapgarh. He was not absorbed on any post of the State Government and therefore, he filed Writ Petition No. 6831 of 1998. which was allowed by the Division Bench on 21. 2. 1998 In terms of the decision of the division Bench in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 502 (SB) of 1995. Anukool Prakash and another v. State of U. P. and another, decided on 22. 2. 1996 and upheld by the Honble Supreme Court. It was ordered that the petition of the petitioner is disposed of in terms of the orders passed in that writ petition. It was further ordered that the Chief Secretary, Government of U. P. will take a policy decision about the appointment of the petitioner and the Chief Secretary, Government of u. P. will pass appropriate orders within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order for absorption of the petitioner in a State department. ( 4 ) IN Writ Petition No. 502 (SB) of 1985 decided by the Division Bench of this Court on 22. 2. 1996, similar order was passed. It is contended that this order has not been complied with and there is no order of absorption of the petitioner. ( 5 ) THE learned standing counsel has filed a counter-affidavit of Sri Yogendra Naraln, Chief secretary, Government of U. P. In which he mentioned that in compliance of both the judgments, he took a policy decision and a Government Order was issued on 16. 3. 1998, which Is annexed with the affidavit. It is further contended that after the policy decision was taken, a meeting of the representatives of various departments was held on 7. 8. 1998 and in that meeting, it was decided that the petitioner be adjusted in Trade Tax Department as Accounts Clerk. 3. 1998, which Is annexed with the affidavit. It is further contended that after the policy decision was taken, a meeting of the representatives of various departments was held on 7. 8. 1998 and in that meeting, it was decided that the petitioner be adjusted in Trade Tax Department as Accounts Clerk. The decision was communicated to the petitioner and he was asked to join and give consent by 5. 2. 1999 by letter dated 16. 1. 1999. However, the petitioner himself is guilty of the laches and he has not yet given his consent. ( 6 ) IN the rejoinder-affidavit, the petitioner has alleged that at the time of the retrenchment, he was working on the post of an executive In Auto Tractors Limited, Pratapgarh. That the post offered to him Is of Accounts Clerk, which is not equivalent to the post held by him and Is of scale of Rs. 4,000 to 6,000. This post is not in consonance with the post for which the petitioner is eligible for being absorbed. That, therefore, the order of this Court has not been complied with and the opposite party has committed the deliberate contempt of the order of this Court. ( 7 ) I have considered the arguments carefully and have gone through the directions given in Writ petition No. 6831 of 1998 and also in the judgment of the Writ Petition No. 502 (SB) of 1995. In both these petitions, orders were made directing the State Government to take a policy decision for absorption of the petitioner and other retrenched employees in any department of the State government In consonance with the policy decision taken by the Government. There was no direction in any of the two writ petitions regarding the post or the scale in which the petitioner should be absorbed. The contention of the petitioner, therefore, that the post of the Accounts clerk is not in consonance of the post held by him in previous department, cannot be accepted. If the petitioner is aggrieved by his absorption on the post of Accounts Clerk, he may file a fresh writ petition challenging the order of the Government and praying for the mandamus that he may be absorbed on the equivalent post. ( 8 ) HOWEVER, In the above two writ petitions, there is no order as to at which post the petitioner should be absorbed. ( 8 ) HOWEVER, In the above two writ petitions, there is no order as to at which post the petitioner should be absorbed. The petitioner has been absorbed in the light of the policy decision taken by the opposite party in compliance of the orders passed in the above two writ petitions. Therefore, it cannot be said that the opposite party has committed the contempt of the orders of this Court or have flouted the orders of the Court. The petitioner has been offered the post of Accounts Clerk in the Trade Tax department and he was asked to give consent by 5. 2. 1999. The petitioner has not given the consent till now. However, it is conceded by the learned standing counsel that the government is still ready to permit the petitioner to Join on the said post even now. ( 9 ) IN the above circumstances, the petition is without merit and is dismissed. The parties are directed to bear their own costs. .