JUDGMENT Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J. Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Singh Paliwal, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Niraj Upadhayaya, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for opposite parties. 2. On 8.5.2015 this Court passed the following order: "Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Santosh Kumar Singh Paliwal, learned counsel for the applicants. Through this contempt petition, the applicants have prayed for punishing the Opposite Parties for willful disobedience of the judgment and order dated 8.12.2014 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ A No. 66187 of 2014 (Vimal Kumar Mishra and another Vs. State of U.P. and Others) by which this Court has directed the State Government to decide the petitioners' representation after hearing the otherside expeditiously preferably within a period of four months from the date the representation is filed. It is stated in paragraph no. 32 that copy of this order was served in the office of the opposite party no. 1 on 12.12.2014, but no decision has yet been taken. Prima facie, a case for punishing the opposite parties for willful disobedience of the judgment and order dated 8.12.2014 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ A No. 66187 of 2014 (Vimal Kumar Mishra and another Vs. State of U.P. and Others) is made out. Issue notice to the opposite party no. 1 to show cause as to why charge be not framed against him for punishing him under Section 12 of Contempt of Courts Act for willful disobedience of the order of this Court dated 8.12.2014 passed in Writ A No. 66187 of 2014 (Vimal Kumar Mishra and another Vs. State of U.P. and Others)." 3. On 6.7.2015 this Court passed the following order: "An affidavit has been filed by the opposite party seeking six weeks further time for compliance of the order dated 8.12.2014 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 66187 of 2014 (Vimal Kumar Mishra and another vs. State of U.P. and others). Considering the contents of the affidavit four weeks and no more time is allowed to comply the orders of this Court dated 8.12.2014 passed in the writ petition and the order dated 18.5.2015 passed in this contempt application. List on 10th August, 2015. Writ Petition No. 66187 of 2014 (Vimal Kumar Mishra and another vs. State of U.P. and others). Considering the contents of the affidavit four weeks and no more time is allowed to comply the orders of this Court dated 8.12.2014 passed in the writ petition and the order dated 18.5.2015 passed in this contempt application. List on 10th August, 2015. In case the aforesaid order of this Court are not complied in its letters and spirit the opposite party shall remain present before the Court on the date fixed. In case it is complied with, an affidavit of compliance would serve the purpose and the opposite party shall not be required to be present before the Court." 4. Again on 11.8.2015 this Court passed the following order: "On 8.5.2015 this Court has passed the following order: "Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Santosh Kumar Singh Paliwal, learned counsel for the applicants. Through this contempt petition, the applicants have prayed for punishing the Opposite Parties for willful disobedience of the judgment and order dated 8.12.2014 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ A No. 66187 of 2014 (Vimal Kumar Mishra and another Vs. State of U.P. and Others) by which this Court has directed the State Government to decide the petitioners' representation after hearing the otherside expeditiously preferably within a period of four months from the date the representation is filed. It is stated in paragraph no. 32 that copy of this order was served in the office of the opposite party no. 1 on 12.12.2014, but no decision has yet been taken. Prima facie, a case for punishing the opposite parties for willful disobedience of the judgment and order dated 8.12.2014 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ A No. 66187 of 2014 ( Vimal Kumar Mishra and another Vs. State of U.P. and Others) is made out. Issue notice to the opposite party no. 1 to show cause as to why charge be not framed against him for punishing him under Section 12 of Contempt of Courts Act for willful disobedience of the order of this Court dated 8.12.2014 passed in Writ A No. 66187 of 2014 ( Vimal Kumar Mishra and another Vs. State of U.P. and Others)." 5. 1 to show cause as to why charge be not framed against him for punishing him under Section 12 of Contempt of Courts Act for willful disobedience of the order of this Court dated 8.12.2014 passed in Writ A No. 66187 of 2014 ( Vimal Kumar Mishra and another Vs. State of U.P. and Others)." 5. Pursuant thereto an affidavit has been filed duly sworn by Sri K.S.Atoria, Principal Secretary, Public Works Department, Government of U.P.Lucknow, opposite party. In paragraph 11 of the affidavit the following stand has been taken: "11. That, in view of the facts and circumstances stated herein above, it is stated that some more time would be taken in the inter departmental consultation and taking a final decision in the matter. Since the matter requires consideration for granting promotion of the petitioners on the post of Assistant Engineer, only after reversion of the Assistant Engineers of SC/ST category, who were granted earlier promotion under Rule 3(7)/Rule 8(A) and have to be reverted back. Only when such reversion takes place, the vacancy will be created and against such vacancy the petitioners could be considered for promotion. The alternatives as suggested by the Public Works Department of the Law Department is to create two supernumerary posts for granting promotion to the applicants/petitioners, who are two in number. Such consultation has been taken and is under active consideration before the Law Department and as soon as the opinion of the Law Department is received, the opposite party will consider and decide the matter for promotion of the applicants/petitioners." 6. Today another affidavit has been filed duly sworn by the opposite party bringing on record the decision taken by him on 29th July, 2015, from the perusal of which, it transpires that the matter is still under progress and that is subject to the various orders passed by this Court as well as the Apex Court in writ petitions, special appeals as well as in special leave petitions. 7. 7. Sri Niraj Upadhyay, learned additional chief standing counsel appearing for the opposite party is directed to get another affidavit of the opposite party stating therein as to whether in any of the special appeals or special leave petitions any interim order staying the reversion of the persons who have illegally been promoted has been passed or not and in case reversion have not been stayed and the applicant's promotion has to be considered against the vacancies which have illegally been occupied by the persons whose promotions were found to be illegal by the Apex Court, in case, there is no such interim order then as to why shelter of the special appeal is being taken in not considering the applicant's case. 8. List this case on 15th September, 2015 in the additional cause list. On that date learned counsel for the applicant is at liberty to make mention." 9. On 16.9.2015, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submitted that the matter has been sent for approval of the U.P. Public Service Commission and as soon as the recommendation shall be received needful shall be done but for that at least one month time may be granted. On such request the time was granted and the matter was directed to be listed on 2.11.2015 on which date it was submitted by the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel that similar controversy is drawing attention of Lucknow Bench in Service Bench No.1618 of 2015 (Arun Kumar Mishra and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) wherein the date has been fixed for 16.11.2015 and as such the case may be adjourned. On such request the matter was posted for 1.12.2015 on which date again a request for adjournment was made by the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and accordingly the case was adjourned for 22.12.2015. 10. Today neither any affidavit has been filed by the opposite parties nor any document has been brought on record to show the compliance of the order of the Writ Court. Under the circumstances, opposite parties no. 1 and 2 both are directed to file affidavit of compliance on or before the date fixed, or shall show cause why charges be not framed against them for wilful disobedience of the order of the Writ Court. List on 12.1.2016.