The Court affirmed the entitlement of the petitioner to arrears of salary, revision of pension, and other retiral dues, and emphasized the obligation of the respondents to comply with the Court's orders.

K.K. Trivedi, J.

1. By this petition under Article of the Constitution of India, a prayer is made to issue a direction to the respondents to make payment of arrears of salary to the petitioner with effect from 22.12.2003 to 17.10.2004 as also the difference in pension, arrears of pension and other retiral dues with interest. A compensation is also demanded for the inordinate delay of making payment of aforesaid claims despite the direction of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 723/2006.

2. It is the claim of the petitioner that she was made to work as Incharge Director Medical Services. It is contended by the petitioner that though a post was earmarked for the candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribe Category, yet when case of the petitioner was considered, she was not promoted. The junior and ineligible persons were posted as Director. The petitioner was required to approach this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 2045/2003 which was dismissed by a Single Bench of this Court on 12.2.2004. The petitioner was required to file a Writ Appeal against the said order being Writ Appeal No. 723/2006, which was finally heard on 21.6.2007. The Division Bench of this Court came to the conclusion that though in the Departmental Promotion Committee held on 16.9.2003, the petitioner was also found fit for promotion on the post of Director Medical Services, but instead of issuing any order of promotion in her respect, the orders were issued in respect of the respondent No. 2 on 19.9.2003. It was contended by the respondent/State that such an action was taken because a. Model Code of Conduct became enforceable and under the directions of the Election Commission, the order of promotion was not issued in respect of the petitioner and because of this on 22.12.2003, officiating charge of the post of Director, Kamla. Nehru Hospital, Bhopal, was given to the petitioner and when subsequently the Model Code of Conduct was released, regular promotion order was issued on 18.10.2004. The Division Bench of this Court has categorically held that the petitioner would be deemed to be promoted on the post of Director Kamla Nehru Hospital, Bhopal, With effect from 22.12.2003 on regular basis and she was entitled to all benefits of the said promotion. The appeal of the petitioner was, thus, allowed.

3. In consequence of this order passed by the Division Bench, it was necessary for the respondents to comply with the order in full, but only an amendment was made in the order dated 18.10.2004 whereby it was said that instead of treating the petitioner promoted with effect from 18.10.2004, she is treated to be promoted with effect from 22.12.2003. The Contempt Petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of because of this order and the proceedings were dropped, but the liberty was granted to the petitioner to challenge the action of the respondents by a separate writ petition, if she was still dissatisfied by the action taken by the respondents. It is the case of the petitioner that a demand of payment of salary was made and the fact was also pointed out that the petitioner has retired from service, yet neither any payment was made nor salary of the petitioner was revised.

4. This Court issued the notices to the respondents in this writ petition and even after service of the notice, no return was filed.

5. The petitioner thereafter moved an application, LA. No. 1838/2010, for taking subsequent facts on record and pointed out that by an order dated 23.12.2009, the petitioner was paid the difference of salary with effect from the month of January, 2004 to May, 2005. The amount of pay which the petitioner should have been paid with effect from 22.12.2003, was not paid. On account of revision of pay, it was necessary to revise the pension of the petitioner, but this too was not done. This Court vide order dated 25.2.2011 categorically directed the respondents to seek instructions and to file reply of the aforesaid interlocutory application, but the reply was not filed. A