Vipul M. Pancholi, J.

This Misc. Civil Application is filed under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 by the applicant alleging that the respondents have intentionally and willfully violated the directions issued by this Court in the order dated 01.08.2016 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.407 of 2010 with Letters Patent Appeal No.423 of 2010, therefore, appropriate proceedings be initiated against the respondents under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

2. Heard learned advocate Mr. M.D. Rana appearing for the applicant and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. K.M. Antani for the respondents.

3. Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the applicant was dismissed from service on the ground of absenteeism and therefore he initiated proceedings by filing petition before this Court. Ultimately, the Division Bench of this Court passed an order on 01.08.2016 in Letters Patent Appeal No.407 of 2010 with Letters Patent Appeal no.423 of 2010, by which, this Court allowed the appeals and quashed and set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge as also the order passed by the Gujarat Civil Service Tribunal and the order of dismissal passed by the respondent No.1 Director, Social Defence Department. This Court directed the respondents to pay all the consequential benefits as if petitioner is deemed to have been continued in service till the age of superannuation i.e. 31.01.1996. Further direction was given to pay the retiral dues with simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the said order. However, the respondents did not comply with the said directions and therefore the applicant has filed the present Misc. Civil Application under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Rana thereafter referred further affidavit filed by the applicant and contended that though the respondents have paid an amount of Rs.52,84,387/- including the interest as directed by this Court during the pendency of these proceedings, the respondents have not given the higher grade scale to the applicant and thereby the respondents have not fully complied with the directions issued by this Court. Thus, appropriate proceedings be initiated against the respondents for non-compliance of the directions issued by this Court.

5. Learned advocate Mr. Rana has placed reliance upon the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Union of India & others v. Maj. Virendraraj J. Kharod, (1987) 2 GLH 111, the decision in the case of Vinaykant G. Kargasthala v. State of Gujarat, (2018) 2 GLR 1059 and also the decision in the case of Natvarlal Motilal Chavda v. State of Gujarat rendered in Letters patent Appeal No.185 of 2017.

6. On the other hand, learned AGP Mr. Antani has referred to various affidavits-in-reply filed by the respondents and contended that respondents have fully complied with the directions issued by this Court in the order dated 01.08.2016 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.407 of 2010 with Letters Patent Appeal No.423 of 2010 and thereby paid total amount of Rs.52,84,387/- including the interest at the rate of 6% per annum as ordered by this Court. It is submitted that this Court has not given any direction to pay the higher grade scale to the applicant as contended by the learned advocate for the applicant.

7. Learned AGP submitted that the scheme of higher grade scale introduced by the Government by way of G.R. dated 16.08.1994 would not be automatically applicable to the applicant. Whether the applicant is entitled for the higher grade scale or not has not been examined by this Court in the aforesaid order and therefore it cannot be said that the respondents have intentionally and willfully disobeyed the directions issued by this Court. He, therefore, requested that this application be dismissed.

8. Learned AGP has placed reliance upon the decision rendered by the High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Ashok Dhariwal v. Jai Narai