1. This is second visit of the petitioner to this Court by way of present writ petition. Earlier, petitioner filed an original application before the then existing M.P. State Administrative Tribunal. On abolishment of the Tribunal, the said matter was transferred to this Court and was re-registered as W.P. No. 2992/03.

2. The grievance of the petitioner in the said writ petition was that his juniors were regularized, but he has not been regularized. This Court decided the matter on 10/08/2004. The relevant portion of the said matter reads as under:-

“Respondents have filed reply and it is stated by them in the reply that even though the orders were passed for regularizing several employees but for want of vacancy, petitioner could not be regularized and therefore his services were dispensed with. In compliance of order of Tribunal dated 1.7.1995, information is submitted that out of 43 persons regularized vide Annexure-P/3, 24 persons are still working and 19 persons have been removed. According to petitioner his name is at serial No. 33 and persons junior to him at serial No. 38, 41, 42 and 43 are still continuing according to the information submitted by the respondents.

Considering the same, it is therefore clear that persons junior have been retained and petitioner who was senior to these persons has been removed. In that view of the matter, respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service and grant him benefit of regularization as was granted to persons immediately junior to him, However, petitioner shall only be entitled to reinstatement and proforma fixation of pay in comparison to his juniors and for the intervening period, he shall not be entitled to wages, the same shall be treated as “no work no pay”. (Emphasis Supplied)

3. The petitioner in obedience of the said order, immediately preferred a representation dated 10/09/2004 and submitted his joining before the District Education Officer. However, the respondents took a long time to permit the petitioner to resume by communication dated 12/05/2007 Annexure-P/7. Petitioner was permitted to join and it was decided that from the date of resuming charge, the petitioner shall be entitled to get salary on the basis of Collector rate and the earlier period shall be treated as “ no work no pay”.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in obedience of the order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 2992/03, the respondents were required to regularize the petitioner from the date, a person immediately junior to him was regularized. The Court directed for proforma fixation of pay in comparison to his juniors, which itself shows that the Court intended to grant him the benefit of retrospective regularization at par with his juniors. By criticizing the order Annexure-P/7, Shri Anil Sharma submits that by no stretch of imagination the intervening period can be treated as ‘no work no pay’. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there was a delay in implementing the order of this Court dated 10/08/2004 and therefore, petitioner cannot be deprived from the arrears of wages for the said period.

5. Per contra, Shri Anil Shrivastava learned Panel Lawyer supported the order and submits that when order of writ petition was not complied with, a contempt petition 04/05 was filed. During pendency of the said contempt petition, the order dated 12/05/2007 Annexure-P/7 was issued and produced before the Bench. On the basis of that order, the Court showed its satisfaction that order dated 10/08/2004 is complied with and therefore, the petition is not entertainable. He also supported the order Annexure-P/7.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the record.

7. A bare perusal of the order passed by the Writ Court dated 10/08/2004, makes it crystal clear that respondents were obliged to undertake the following exercise:- (1) to regularize the petitioner from the date, a person immediately juni