1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7229/2005 (Geeta Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.) Date of order : 26.8.2008 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr. B.N. Kalla, for the petitioner. In this case, petitioner has prayed for directions to the respondents to make payment of sum due to the petitioner with 24% interest as per Annexure-1 and Annexure-2. Vide order dated 16.12.1998 (Annexure-1), specific directions were issued by learned Single Judge of this Court that “thus, in view of the above, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned termination order dated 3.11.95 (Annexure.2) is hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled to get full back wages upto 3-11-95 if it has not been paid. However, from 4-11-95 till today, 50% of the back wages shall be paid to her”. The aforesaid judgment was further challenged before Hon'ble Division Bench and vide judgment 2 Annexure-2 dated 27.11.2001, Hon'ble Division Bench has passed following orders: “Therefore, it will be just and proper to direct that so far as the question of payment of any back wages for the period of absence uptill 3.11.1995 i.e. the date of termination is concerned, such payment will depend upon the result of the enquiry, if any. In case the appellants decide not to hold the enquiry against the respondent for the period of absence, the legal consequences as such will follow and in case they decide to hold the enquiry against the respondent on the allegation of absence uptill 3.11.1995, the legal consequences as such shall follow and in case it is decided as a result of enquiry in accordance with the Rules that her services are not required to be terminated, a proper order shall be passed for regularization of the period of absence as per her leave title and in accordance with the rules for the period before and after 4.11.1995 till the date she was taken back on duty. She will be entitled for the 50% of back wages after 4.11.1995. this appeal, therefore, partly succeeds to the extent as above. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no order as to the costs.” The case of the petitioner is that in compliance of the order passed by this Court although the petitioner was taken back on duty but wages has not been paid as ordered by this Court. 3 In this view of the matter, the respondents are directed to comply with the order with regard to payment of wages as ordered by learned Single Judge as well as Hon'ble Division Bench as aforesaid within a period of three months from today, if not already paid. With the aforesaid observation, this writ petition is disposed of with no order as to cost. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J. arun