Tarun Agarwala, J. - (1.) Heard Sri R.P. Khare, the learned councel for the petitioner .and Sri V.K.Rat, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents.
(2.) Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present writ petition is that the petitioner was working as a Sub Inspector and on account of three adverse entries was compulsory retired from the service on 14.5.1990, The petitioner filed Civil Writ Petition No. 13578 of 1990 and, initially an interim order was passed staying the operation of the order of retirement By another order dated 16.12.1991, this Court directedd that the petitioner was entitled to his salary dming the pendency of the writ petition. Eventually, the writ petition was dismissed on merit by a judgment dated 16.2.2001, even though, in the meajnwhle/the petitioner had retired on 30.11.1997 upon readying the age of superannuation at 58 years. The petitioner, upon the dismissed of the writ petition, filed a Special Appeal No. 186 of 2001 which was also dismissed and the judgment of the learned Single Judge was affirmed. the division Bench, while dismissing the appeal, passed the following order: " However, it is made clear that the retiral benefits whatever is admissible according tolaw on the basis of compulsory retirement should be made available to the appllant/petitioner as early as possible prefarably within three montrs from the date of communication of this order."
(3.) Based on the aforesaid ,direction the retirement benefits were calculated and certain deductions were made from his retirement benefits namel, from his gratuity and certain amolunt was also deducted from his pension, Since the entre amount towards retirement benefits was not paid, the petitioner filed a Contempt Petitioner No. 731 of 2003 in which an order dated 13,2.2004 'was passed directing the petitioner to make a representation which would be decided by the autrionty concerned. This representation, was rejected by an order dated 13.5.2004. consequently the present writ petition was filed only for the quasequently, the of the order dated 13.5.2004, but for the payment of .the revised pay scale, arrears from 1990 to 1992 etc. The petitioner also prayed that the action of the respondents in deducting the amount paid to him towards the salary pursuant to the interim order reanted by this court from the gratuity and from the penson was illegal and was liable to be quashed. The petitioner further prayed that a mandamus be issued to the respondents direction them to refund the amount alongwith the interest.;