ORDER (ORAL) By the Court.—As there is no objection from the respondents to the application for condonation of delay, being allowed, it is hereby allowed and the period of delay as pointed out by the Registry is, thus, condoned. 2. We have heard learned counsel for parties and considered the pleadings as well as impugned judgment. 3. This Special Appeal has been preferred against the order dated 17.9.2012 passed by a learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1614 (SS) of 2009 (Promod Kumar and others v. State of U.P. and others) whereby the writ petition was allowed with following directions: “The petitioner’s case is on same footing as that of Writ Petition No. 5023(SS) of 2001 (Asha Ram and another v. State of U.P. and others), therefore, he is entitled for the benefit of judgment and order dated 28.3.2006 passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition. Therefore, I hereby extend the benefit of judgment and order dated 28.3.2006 passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition to the petitioner of the present writ petition also. In the aforesaid manner, the writ petition is allowed.” 4. The brief facts leading to filing of this Special Appeal are that all the respondents (writ-petitioners) were engaged for the Census operations relating to the year 1991. Some of them had worked in the year 1981 and some others in the year 2001. All of them had applied towards the notification issued by the Directorate of Census. After undergoing the selection process, they were duly recruited. On winding up of the Census work, their services were dispensed with. 5. However, in the year, 1991-1992, there was a move to induct/absorb all such retrenched Census employees against the vacancies lying with the State Government in other offices. Pursuant thereto, it is said, a number of candidates have been accommodated. Now they are serving in the departments where they were absorbed. The writ-petitioners approached the authorities through respondent No. 4 but despite issuance of various directions/instructions, no action was taken. In the year 1997, the writ-petitioners again approached the authorities with the claim to provide the same relief. 6. After a great persuasion, respondent No. 1 called all the Head of Departments in order to take decision in regard to remaining such retrenched employees of the Census department. In the year 1997, the writ-petitioners again approached the authorities with the claim to provide the same relief. 6. After a great persuasion, respondent No. 1 called all the Head of Departments in order to take decision in regard to remaining such retrenched employees of the Census department. Thus, a decision was taken to absorb all such employees against the available vacancies lying with the departments. Despite the aforesaid decision, when no action was taken by the authorities, the respondent writ-petitioners and other similarly situated persons approached the higher authorities. Even after assurance, they were compelled to run from pillar to post. 7. Having no other option, some of the employees approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 2905 (SS) of 2006 (Sanjay Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. and others). In pursuance thereto, the respondents issued a Government Order dated 21.8.2007 but under that order, the retrenched Census employees were only provided age relaxation in the matter of employment. Thereafter, another Government Order was issued on 3.10.2007 whereby all the District Magistrates and Collectors of Uttar Pradesh, Head of Departments, Chief Secretary and Secretaries of Government of U.P. were directed to absorb all such retrenched Census employees against the vacancies lying with them. 8. Despite the aforesaid Government Orders and the directives, the respondents have failed to carry out the exercise although all the respondent-writ-petitioners have been applying wherever and whenever any vacancy was notified. The respondents have kept on pursuing their claims before the authorities and in the process represented on various occasions to the authorities. 9. On 29.4.2008, a letter was issued by the higher authorities with specific direction to absorb the retrenched Census employees against the existing vacancies lying with them but all such directions went in vain. In the meantime, whenever the notifications were issued by the respective Departments in order to fill up the vacancies, the writ-petitioners applied on the prescribed format annexing therewith copy of the certificate issued by the Directorate of the Census. On each occasion, the respondents-writ petitioners were not given adequate accommodation. Having noticed the said fact, the Government issued further order on 11.11.2008 and 27.11.2008 with specific direction that all such retrenched Census employees may be absorbed and the Government be informed accordingly. 10. On each occasion, the respondents-writ petitioners were not given adequate accommodation. Having noticed the said fact, the Government issued further order on 11.11.2008 and 27.11.2008 with specific direction that all such retrenched Census employees may be absorbed and the Government be informed accordingly. 10. In the meantime, the petitioners made various efforts to get the relief from the authorities as on previous occasions similarly situated incumbents were picked up and absorbed by the respondents in the year 1981, and some of the employees were also benefited who belonged to the year 1991 as has been noticed by this Hon’ble Court while deciding Writ Petition No. 2905 (SS) of 2006 (Sanjay Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. and others). On 12.1.2009, the State Government again issued a letter to the Head of Departments for the absorption of retrenched Census employee. 11. In a writ petition in Santosh Kumar v. Union of India and others, 2001 (3) UPLBEC 2590 , the authorities were directed to offer appointment on clerical posts to the retrenched Census employees. 12. Similarly, in Writ Petition No. 3398 (SS) of 2000 (Mahesh Chandra Dwivedi and others v. State of U.P. and others), this Court vide order dated 18.12.2003 directed the authorities concerned to provide benefits of the judgments passed in Subhas Kumar’s case, and to consider the case of respondents-writ petitioners for appointment on the suitable posts as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months. 13. In the Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17064 of 1994 (Devi Chandra Saraswat v. Collector, Agra and others), the writ petitioner Shri Devi Chandra Saraswat, who was also a retrenched employee of the Census department, was appointed on the post of Assistant Washil/Waqi Nabis in Tehsil-Mathura vide order dated 6.3.2003. 14. In yet another case vide order dated 6.12.2001 passed by this Court another retrenched employee of Census department, namely, Shri Ashok Kumar Bharadwaj was directed to be appointed by the State Government vide its letter dated 25.1.2003 on a suitable post. In compliance of the said order, Shri Bharadwaj was absorbed on the post of junior clerk in Collectorate, Mathura by the order of District Magistrate-Mathura passed on 24.3.2003. 15. In compliance of the said order, Shri Bharadwaj was absorbed on the post of junior clerk in Collectorate, Mathura by the order of District Magistrate-Mathura passed on 24.3.2003. 15. Thus, this Court in several cases of similar nature in respect of retrenched employees of Census Department issued directions to the authorities of the State Government to absorb the retrenched employees and pursuant thereto, many retrenched employees were absorbed. 16. We are also informed that in a subsequent application praying for disposal of writ petition, the private respondents herein (writ petitioners) brought to the notice of the Court, the order passed by that Court in Asha Ram’s Case. Operative portion of the order on reproduction, would read as: “In this view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed and a writ of mandamus is issued to the opposite parties to offer appointment to the petitioners on clerical posts within a period of three months from the date, a certified copy of this order is produced.” 17. It also appears that the above judgment of learned Single Judge was complied with and there is no information that it was called in question before any higher forum. 18. Learned counsel for State-appellants submitted that though the Hon’ble Single Jude has directed to grant benefits in terms of his own judgment in Asha Ram’s case, which appears to have been complied with but there is a point of distinction. Now, the State Government has framed the scheme which was not notified when the judgment was rendered in Asha Ram’s case as it was issued only in the year 2007. Learned counsel for appellants argued that the scheme in question was framed in terms of the Supreme Court judgment passed in the case of State of Tamil Nadu and others v. G. Mohamad Ameenudeen, JT (1999) 9 SCC 173 , whereby directions had been issued to frame such schemes. Thus, learned Single Judge should have passed the order within the precincts of scheme instead of issuing direction to offer employment in terms of his own judgment in Asha Ram’s case. 19. Thus, learned Single Judge should have passed the order within the precincts of scheme instead of issuing direction to offer employment in terms of his own judgment in Asha Ram’s case. 19. On the other hand, learned counsel for private respondents contended that after framing of scheme a Government Order dated 3.10.2007 was issued, whereby the earlier Government Order issued in respect of the scheme was modified and directions were issued to all the District Magistrates-cum-Collectors, Head of the Departments, Chief Secretary and Secretaries to absorb all such retrenched employees against the vacancies available with them subject to the decision of pending writ petitions before this Court. 20. Thus on a careful consideration of rival submissions, we are of the view that learned Single Judge directed the appellants to offer employment in terms of his earlier judgment in Asha Ram’s case. However, since the scheme has been framed towards the compliance of Supreme Court’s judgment in G. Mohd. Ameenudeen’s case, though, thereafter a subsequent Government Order dated 3.10.2007 as aforesaid, was issued, it would have been appropriate for learned Single Judge to issue direction for consideration of the case of respondents-writ petitioners instead of issuing direction to offer employment. 21. To clarify the position further, though, a Government Order was issued subsequent to the notification of scheme whereby the earlier Government Order accompanying the scheme was modified to some extent but that subsequent Government Order was again made subject to the outcome of pending writ petitions in this Court. Even though, in some of the judgments, the scheme was not taken notice yet in the majority of judgments rendered by learned Single Judges, the directions as contained in the judgment of Hon’ble the Apex Court rendered in the cases of (i) Union of India v. Dinesh Kumar Saxena and others, 1995 (2) ALJ 1346 and (ii) State of Tamil Nadu and others v. G. Mohamed Ameenudeen, JT (1999) 9 SC 173, have been followed. 22. In that view of the matter when the majority of learned Single Judges have passed the judgments/orders in line with the Supreme Court’s judgments, as above, the retrenched census employees can be absorbed only under the scheme framed by the State Government. 22. In that view of the matter when the majority of learned Single Judges have passed the judgments/orders in line with the Supreme Court’s judgments, as above, the retrenched census employees can be absorbed only under the scheme framed by the State Government. Hence, the impugned judgment is modified to read that the State Government shall consider the cases of private respondents (writ petitioners) herein on merit and in the light of the scheme as well as Government orders issued towards the compliance of the judgments of Hon’ble the Apex Court as well as the judgments passed by learned Single Judges in line therewith. 23. This Special Appeal, thus, stands allowed to that extent. ——————