JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Ramesh Kumar Singh, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Pankaj Khare, Advocate for respondents. 2. Petitioners have preferred contempt petition alleging noncompliance of order dated 02.05.2016 passed in Special Appeal No. 522/2012 (Mewa Lal and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) whereby the appellate court while setting aside the judgment and order dated 05.1.2012 of learned Single Judge directed the opposite party to consider the case of the appellants in the light of judgment dated 26.02.2013 passed in Special Appeal No. 110 of 2013 State of U.P. and others versus Pramod Kumar and others. 3. It has been pleaded on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners are the retrenched employees of the Directorate of Census Operation, U.P., Lucknow. The work and conduct of the petitioners have all throughout been good. Government Orders have been issued for absorption and appointment of the retrenched employees of the Census Department while relaxing age against vacant post(s) lying in different Departments. Copies of the Government Orders dated 21.08.2007 and 09.10.2007 are annexed with the petition as Annexures 3 and 4 respectively. Pursuant to the Government Orders, the petitioners approached the respondent-authorities for absorption in the other Government Departments but since the respondents have not considered the grievance of the petitioners, hence, the petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 5602 (S/S) of 2009 and writ petition No. 7672 (S/S) of 2009. The Hon’ble Single Judge vide judgment and orders dated 14.09.2009 and 20.11.2009 directed District Magistrate, Barabanki to consider the petitioners' case for absorption keeping in view of the aforesaid Government Orders against the post of Lekhpal/Collection Amin or any other vacant post. It is further pleaded that instead of complying the judgment and orders passed by the learned Single Judge dated 14.09.2009 and 20.11.2009 regarding petitioner Nos. 12 and 13, the District Magistrate, Barabanki vide orders dated 08.12.2009 and 29.12.2009 rejected the claim of the petitioners. Thereafter, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 08.12.2009 and 29.12.2009 vide writ petition No. 7180 (S/S) of 2010 (Mewa Lal and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) which was dismissed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 05.1.2012. Aggrieved by the order dated 05.01.2012, petitioners filed Special Appeal No. 522 of 2012 (Mewa Lal and others Vs. Thereafter, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 08.12.2009 and 29.12.2009 vide writ petition No. 7180 (S/S) of 2010 (Mewa Lal and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) which was dismissed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 05.1.2012. Aggrieved by the order dated 05.01.2012, petitioners filed Special Appeal No. 522 of 2012 (Mewa Lal and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) which was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 02.05.2016 setting aside the judgment and order dated 05.01.2012 passed by learned Single Judge in writ petition No. 7180 of 2010. The Division Bench in Special Appeal further directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners in the light of the judgment and order dated 26.02.2013 passed in Special Appeal No. 110 of 2013. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that even after the judgment in the Special Appeal, the respondents did not comply the order passed in Special Appeal No. 522 of 2012 hence, the present contempt petition has been filed. 4. The District Magistrate, Barabanki has filed an affidavit, inter alia stating that the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench in Special Appeal No. 522 of 2012 dated 02.05.2016 has been complied with and there is no willful defiance of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court. It is submitted on behalf of the respondents that vide Government Order dated 21.08.2007, scheme for temporary employees of census Department for the year 1991 and 2000-01 was formulated. Initially the scheme framed by the Government Order dated 21.08.2007 was for three years from the date of issuance of the Government Order which provided that no preference will be given in the matter of recruitment to the Census employees. A clarification was issued vide consequential Government Order dated 09.10.2007. Subsequently, in compliance of the orders passed by this Court, in the case of the petitioners, the Government Order was issued on 23.08.2017 in which condition no. 4 mentioned in the Government order dated 21.08.2007 which provides that scheme will be only for three years from the date of issuance of State Government Order was relaxed for the petitioners. Thereafter, the Principal Secretary, General Administration conveyed a meeting of the census employees of different Departments to ensure the compliance of the order passed by this Court. 4 mentioned in the Government order dated 21.08.2007 which provides that scheme will be only for three years from the date of issuance of State Government Order was relaxed for the petitioners. Thereafter, the Principal Secretary, General Administration conveyed a meeting of the census employees of different Departments to ensure the compliance of the order passed by this Court. The minutes of meeting dated 14.02.2019 circulated on 18.02.2019 are annexed along with affidavit of the District Magistrate, Barabanki. Thereafter, pursuant to the decision taken by the State Government, consequential order dated 23.02.2019 was passed by the District Magistrate whereby cases of the writ petitioners were considered and appointment was offered to the eight writ petitioners. Consequently, appointment orders were issued to eight writ petitions on 23.02.2019. The copies of the appointment orders have been filed along with affidavit. 5. This Court vide order dated 12.03.2019 required the contemnor(s) to file fresh affidavit for taking conscious decision in respect of petitioner no. 2. Thereafter, the case of the petitioner no. 2 Raj Kumar was considered vide order dated 23.03.2019 by the District Magistrate, Barabanki and consequential appointment orders were issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, on 25.03.2019. Thereafter on 30.08.2019 the contempt court directed the respondents to offer lump sum amount to the persons who have attained the age of superannuation and could not be accommodated. To make compliance of the order dated 30.08.2019, the District Magistrate, Barabanki vide his letter dated 13.09.2019 referred the matter to the State Government. The State Government after examining the matter sent the instructions to the District Magistrate Varanasi vide its letter dated 17.09.2019 that under the scheme, the eligible persons have been accommodated/appointed after extending the benefit of relaxation. It is further stated in the letter dated 17.9.2019 that under the scheme, there is no provision for providing lump sum amount to anybody nor there is any amount proposed in the budget, in this regard. Learned counsel for respondents submitted that as per the scheme dated 21.08.2007, the relaxation mentioned therein was applicable only to the date of notification of vacancies and the census employees were not entitled for any other preferences or privileges. He further submitted that except petitioners 1, 5, 6, 11 and 12, the other petitioners have been appointed keeping in view the benefit of the scheme. He further submitted that except petitioners 1, 5, 6, 11 and 12, the other petitioners have been appointed keeping in view the benefit of the scheme. The remaining five petitioners could not be adjusted as they have already attained the age of superannuation and since there is no provision in the scheme for providing lump sum amount to the retired employees and there is no budget for the same therefore, the same cannot be granted to them. It is further submitted that in the light of the scheme, the case of the petitioners has been considered on merit and the orders dated 02.05.2016 passed in Special Appeal No. 522 of 2012 have been complied with, in its letter and spirit. He has further submitted that even the appellate court in special appeal no. 522 of 2012 has not issued any order for giving lump sum amount to the retired employees nor there is any provision in the scheme and therefore, the five writ petitioners (since retired) are not entitled to the said benefit. It is contended on behalf of the respondents that the order dated 30.8.2019 passed by the Contempt Court directing the authorities to offer lump sum amount to the persons who had attained the age of superannuation is beyond the four corners of the order dated 2.5.2016 passed in Special Appeal No.522 of 2012, which is alleged to have been violated and therefore was beyond the jurisdiction of the contempt court. Relevant portion (paras 2 and 3) of the order dated 30.8.2019 passed by the Contempt court reads as under : “1…………… 2. The matter remained pending with the concerned authorities around ten years. In the meantime, some of the petitioners attained the age of superannuation. However, a decision has been taken to accommodate those, who have not attained the age of superannuation pursuant to the judgment and order in question. 3. Since the petitioners cannot he held at fault for delayed decision by the authority concerned, it would be appropriate to offer lump-sum amount to the persons, who have attained the age of superannuation and could not be accommodated. 4………….. 5…………..” 6. Submission of learned counsel for respondents in context of offering lump sum amount to the persons retired, which is beyond the scope of order dated 2.5.2016, appears to be correct. 4………….. 5…………..” 6. Submission of learned counsel for respondents in context of offering lump sum amount to the persons retired, which is beyond the scope of order dated 2.5.2016, appears to be correct. The operative part of the order dated 2.5.2016 passed in Special Appeal No.522 of 2012 reads as under : “Accordingly, the special appeal is allowed and the order dated 05.01.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the appellants in the light of the judgment and order dated 26.02.2013 passed in Special Appeal No.110 of 2013.” 7. A perusal of the aforesaid order dated 2.5.2016 depicts that the Division Bench has only directed the respondents to consider the case of the appellants in the light of judgment and order dated 26.2.2013 passed in Special Appeal No.110 of 2013 wherein the State Government was directed to consider the case of the private respondents on merit in the light of Scheme as well as the Government Orders issued towards the compliance of the judgment of the Apex Court as well as the judgment passed by learned Single Judge. The relevant portion of the order dated 26.2.2013 passed in Special Appeal No.110 of 2013 is reproduced as under : “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. This Special Appeal, thus, stands allowed to that extent.“ 8. Perusal of the order dated 2.5.2016 passed in special appeal No.522 of 2012 (supra) as well as the order dated 26.2.2013 passed in Special appeal No.110 of 2013 reveals that in the special appeals, no direction was given to respondents to offer lump sum amount to the persons who has attained the age of superannuation and could not be accommodated. 9. 9. Learned counsel for respondents has further submitted that since in compliance of the judgment and order dated 2.5.2016, the respondents have considered the case of the petitioners and have given appointments to petitioners 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 13 and since the petitioners 1, 5, 6, 11 and 12 had retired, therefore, as per rules, they could not have been accommodated/appointed. He further submitted that as per instructions of the State Government, under the Scheme, there is no provision for providing lump sum amount to anybody, nor any such amount is proposed in the budget. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied on the judgment in (1996) 10 SCC 102 V. Kanakrajan Vs. General Manager South Eastern Railway and others wherein it has been held that the order of the High Court directing the authorities to consider the question of the appellant's promotion and the authorities refusing to entertain appellant's application for contempt whereby refusing to promote on the ground of unsuitability as per rules was upheld. Learned counsel for the respondents has further relied on the judgment reported in (1996) 6 SCC 291 J.S. Parihar Vs. Ganpat Duggar and others wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that once there is an order passed by the Government on the basis of the directions issued by the Court, there arises a fresh cause of action to seek redressal in an appropriate forum and this cannot be considered to be willful violation of the order. 10. Relevant para 6 of the judgment is reproduced as under : “6. The question then is whether the Division Bench was right in setting aside the direction issued by the learned Single Judge to redraw the seniority list. It is contended by Mr. S.K. Jain, the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, that unless the learned Judge goes into the correctness of the decision taken by the Government in preparation of the seniority list in the light of the law laid down by three Benches, the learned Judge cannot come to a conclusion whether or not the Respondent had willfully or deliberately disobeyed the orders of the Court as defined Under Section 2(b) of the Act. Therefore, the learned Single Judge of the High Court necessarily has to go into the merits of that question. We do not find that the contention is well founded. Therefore, the learned Single Judge of the High Court necessarily has to go into the merits of that question. We do not find that the contention is well founded. It is seen that, admittedly, the Respondents had prepared the seniority list on 2-7-1991. Subsequently promotions came to be made. The question is whether seniority list is open to review in the contempt proceedings to find out whether it is in conformity with the directions issued by the earlier Benches. It is seen that once there is an order passed by the Government on the basis of the directions issued by the court, there arises a fresh cause of action to seek redressal in an appropriate forum. The preparation of the seniority list may be wrong or may be right or may or may not be in conformity with the directions. But that would be a fresh cause of action for the aggrieved party to avail of the opportunity of judicial review. But that cannot be considered to be the wilful violation of the order. After re-exercising the judicial review in contempt proceedings, a fresh direction by the learned Single Judge cannot be given to redraw the seniority list. In other words, the learned Judge was exercising the jurisdiction to consider the matter on merits in the contempt proceedings. It would not be permissible Under Section 12 of the Act. Therefore, the Division Bench has exercised the power Under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance being a judgment or order of the Single Judge; the Division Bench corrected the mistake committed by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, it may not be necessary for the State to file an appeal in this Court against the judgment of the learned Single Judge when the matter was already seized of the Division Bench." 11. Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2014)3 SCC 373 Sudhir Vasudeva Chairman and Managing Director, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited and others versus M. George Ravishekaran and others has held in para 19 as under : "The power vested in the High Courts as well as this Court to punish for contempt is a special and rare power available both under the Constitution as well as the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It is a drastic power which, if misdirected, could even curb the liberty of the individual charged with commission of contempt. It is a drastic power which, if misdirected, could even curb the liberty of the individual charged with commission of contempt. The very nature of the power casts a sacred duty in the Courts to exercise the same with the greatest of care and caution. This is also necessary as, more often than not, adjudication of a contempt plea involves a process of self-determination of the sweep, meaning and effect of the order in respect of which disobedience is alleged. The Courts must not, therefore, travel beyond the four corners of the order which is alleged to have been flouted or enter into questions that have not been dealt with or decided in the judgment or the order violation of which is alleged. Only such directions which are explicit in a judgment or order or are plainly self -evident ought to be taken into account for the purpose of consideration as to whether there has been any disobedience or willful violation of the same. Decided issues cannot be reopened; nor can the plea of equities be considered. The Courts must also ensure that while considering a contempt plea the power available to the Court in other corrective jurisdictions like review or appeal is not trenched upon. No order or direction supplemental to what has been already expressed should be issued by the Court while exercising jurisdiction in the domain of the contempt law; such an exercise is more appropriate, in other jurisdictions vested in the Court, as noticed above." 12. In view of the above, the law in this regard is settled and once there is an order passed by the government on the basis of the directions issued by the Court, a fresh cause of action has arisen for the aggrieved party to avail the appropriate judicial remedy and this cannot be said to be a wilful disobedience of the order and no fresh direction can be given while exercising the power of judicial review in contempt proceedings afresh. 13. 13. In the case in hand, since no direction was issued vide judgment and order dated 2.5.2016 passed in Special Appeal No.522 of 2012 nor any direction was issued in special Appeal No.110 of 2013, therefore, in view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sudhir Vasudeva’s case (supra), this court being the Court of contempt cannot travel beyond what has been ordered by the writ Court/special appellate court and therefore, I am not inclined to proceed against the contemners for alleged non-compliance of order dated 30.8.2019 passed by the contempt court. 14. Having considered submission of learned counsel for respondents and after going through the judgments of V. Kanakarajan’s case (supra) and J.S. Parihar’s case (supra) and after taking note of the fact that in compliance of the judgment and order dated 2.5.2016 and order dated 7.9.2019 passed by the State Government, appointments to petitioners 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 13 have been given and the petitioners 1, 5, 6, 11 and 12 could not be appointed as per rules as they had already retired, I am of the opinion that the order passed by the District Magistrate declining to consider the case of the petitioners 1, 5, 6, 11 and 12 gives rise to fresh cause of action to the said petitioners for which they can avail the appropriate remedy as advised. 15. No case for wilful and deliberate disobedience has been made out. I am of the opinion that sufficient compliance has been made by the respondents and by no stretch, it can be considered to be a deliberate and wilful violation of the judgment and order dated 2.5.2016. 16. The contempt petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.