ORDER

1. In the wake of unprecedented and uncertain situation due to outbreak of the Novel Corona virus (COVID-19) and considering the advisories issued by the Government of India, this petition has been heard and decided finally in physical hearing to maintain social distancing.

2. With the consent of the parties, the matter is finally heard in physical hearing.

3. The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs :-

“(i) That, the respondents be directed to make payment of salary to the petitioner between the period 28.10.2002 to 26.10.2006 with interest @ 18% p.a. and the respondents be directed to grant arrears of salary, seniority and other consequential benefits to the petitioner.

(ii) That, the other relief doing justice including cost be awarded.”

4. It is pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner that earlier the petitioner was compulsory retired vide order dated 23.10.2002 from service considering the rule 42 (b) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. The aforesaid order of compulsory retirement was put to challenge by the petitioner alongwith others and in analogous hearing of three other petitions the matter was finally heard and decided by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 25.8.2005 in W.P.No.7768/2003 (Munna Singh v. State of M.P. and others), W.P.No.7766/2003 (Jaswant Singh v. State of M.P. and others) and W.P.No.7769/2003 (Shiroman Singh v. State of M.P. and others). The Hon'ble Court has pleased to quash the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner alongwith others and they were directed to be reinstated in service with all other consequential benefits. It is pointed out that in pursuance to the aforesaid order, the petitioner's services was reinstated vide Annexure P-3 and he was also permitted joining vide Annexure P/4 and he has continued upto his retirement. It is pointed out that the part of the order at paragraph 10 in Annexure P/2 was not complied with in totality, therefore, the present petition is being filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further drawn attention of this Court to Annexure P/5 and the order passed in the case of similarly situated employee Shiroman Singh Bhadoria and his case was also considered and disposed of along with the present petitioner and the Court had directed as under :-

“Keeping in view the totality of circumstances, as there is a specific direction of this Court to grant all consequential benefits to the petitioners which was clarified again in Contempt Petition by making it clear that the petitioners shall be entitled for back wages, the respondents are directed to grant back wages to the petitioners for the period they were out of employment i.e. with effect from 28.10.2002 till 27.10.2006.

It is needless to mention that in case the aforesaid amount is not paid within a period of three months from today, the same shall carry interest at the rate of 8% (eight percent) till the date of realization.”

5. It is fairly submitted that the petitioner could not file any contempt petition against the impugned order but as per the directions given by the Court in Annexure P/2 is concerned, that finality has not been challenged to the part of this order by the respondent/State. In such circumstances, the benefit of back wages for intervening period should have been extended to the petitioner but they are not extended to the petitioner. He prays that the entire salary of intervening period be extended to the petitioner alongwith interest.

6. Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer for the State has submitted that the second petition for the same issue is not maintainable. Once the matter has already been decided in the earlier round of litigation i.e. W.P.No.7768/2003, the petitioner should have filed the contempt petition raising all the grievances but no contempt petition was filed. However, in pursuance to the order dated 25.8.2005 he has already been reinstated in servi