ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI)

1. This Misc. Civil Application is filed under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, wherein, the applicant has alleged that the respondents have intentionally and willfully not complied with the directions issued by this Court in the order dated 12.06.2014 passed in Special Civil Application No.14798 of 2005 as well as in the order dated 12.02.2015 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.29 of 2015.

2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Vaibhav Vyas for the applicant and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Antani for the respondents.

3. Learned advocate Mr. Vyas for the applicant submitted that this Court, by an order dated 12.06.2014 passed in Special Civil Application No.14798 of 2005, quashed the office orders passed by the respondents terminating the service of the applicant as Resident Medical Officer and Ex-officio Assistant Professor in Forensic Medicine Department in Government Medical College, Surat and thereafter observed in para 21 as under:

“21. After termination of the petitioner’s service, he has already crossed the age of superannuation i.e. 31/10/2007 and today he is 64. Therefore, question of reinstatement of the petitioner does not arise. However, the benefits as if the impugned order was never in existence are required to be given to the petitioner. It is, however, undisputed fact that the petitioner, after the date of his transfer, proceeded and remained on leave until the date of his termination. Thus, on the principle of ‘No work no Pay’, the petitioner would not be entitled to arrears of salary and other benefits for that period. However, whole period after the petitioner’s leave till the date of his superannuation shall be treated as on duty for the purpose of calculation of the retiral benefits which shall be calculated within the period of three months from the date of receipt of the writ of this order and shall be paid to the petitioner immediately thereafter alongwith the arrears of retiral benefits.

4. Thus, by way of the said order, respondents were directed to calculate the retiral benefits of the applicant within stipulated time limit. The said order was challenged by the respondents by filing Letters Patent Appeal No.29 of 2015. The Division Bench of this Court disposed of the said LPA on 12.02.2015, wherein the Division Bench did not disturb the directions given by the learned Single Judge. In spite of such direction, the respondents have not complied with the said directions and therefore this application is filed. However, learned advocate has submitted that now the concerned respondent has passed an order on 26.02.2018 and thereby all the benefits are granted to the applicant as directed by this Court except the salary for the period between 07.07.2005 to 31.10.2007, i.e. the date on which the petitioner crossed the age of superannuation. He has, therefore, urged that appropriate directions be given to the respondents.

5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader has referred the affidavits filed by the respondents, and more particularly, the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.2 on 31.01.2018, in which, the respondent No.2 has pointed out why the departmental proceedings pending against the applicant could not be concluded.

6. It is further submitted that the provisional pension was granted to the applicant considering the pending departmental inquiry by an order dated 12.02.2015. However, now the departmental inquiry is concluded and orders are passed in such departmental inquiry and thereafter on 26.02.2018 all the retiral benefits as directed by this Court have been granted to the applicant. It is further submitted that applicant is not entitled to claim the salary for the period between 07.07.2005 to 31.10.2007. It is, therefore, urged that this application be dismissed.

7. Having considered the submissions canvassed on behalf of learned advocates appearing for the par