D.N. Patel, J. - (1.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order, passed by this Court dated 16th December, 2009 in W.P.(S) No. 2366 of 2004 has not yet been complied with. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken this Court to fine nicety of the facts and has submitted that paragraph nos. 9 and 10 of the aforesaid order are explicitly clear and they have not yet been complied with by the respondents. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that against the order dated 16th December, 2009, passed in W.P.(S) No. 2366 of 2004, L.P.A. No. 522 of 2010 was preferred by the State, which was dismissed by a Division Bench of th is Court vide order dated 6th July, 2011. Despite this dismissal order, the direction given by this Court has not been complied with. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that one S.L.P. No. 21822 of 2011 was instituted by the State, which was also dismissed vide order dated 6th February, 2012. Despite the dismissal of S.L.P., the respondents have not even finally calculated and sanctioned the amount, legally payable to the petitioner. The petitioner was ready and willing to wait at least for some time, but, the calculation ought to have been made by the respondents and it should have been sanctioned. A period of four weeks has already lapsed from the date of dismissal of the S.L.P. By the Hon'ble Supreme Court and, therefore, the respondents are liable for contempt of court.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents submitted that they have filed counter affidavit and they are seeking two months' time to make payment to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no such counter affidavit filed by respondent no.3 has been served upon the petitioner.
(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the order, passed by this Court dated 16th December, 2009 in W.P.(S) No. 2366 of 2004 has not been complied with, more so when the L.P.A. as well as S.L.P., preferred by the respondent -State, have been dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 6th July, 2011 and by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 6th February, 2012 respectively. More than five weeks' period has lapsed after dismissal of the S.L.P. Till today neither the amount legally payable to the petitioner has been calculated nor it has been sanctioned.;