WP(C) 5715/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MADAN B. LOKUR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. N. SARMA The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 21.8.2009 passed by the Central Ad ministrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, Guwahati (for short Tribunal ) in O.A. N o.145/07. The respondent was initially appointed in a Group D post with effect from 7th De cember, 1993 in the office of the Sub-Divisional Inspector of Post Offices, Darr ang Division, Mangaldoi. Subsequently, by an order dated 22.4.1998, the services of the respondent were t erminated by the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent preferred Original Application being OA No.89/ 98 before the Tribunal. This Original Application was allowed by the Tribunal by an order dated 8th December, 2000. The operative portion of the order passed by the Tribunal reads as follows:- In the facts and circumstances of the case the removal of the applicant was unj ustified. The grounds relied for removal of the applicant therefore cannot be le gally sustained. For the reasons mentioned above the order of removal of the app licant issued under letter No.B-2/Staff/Gen/98 dated 22.4.98 is liable to be set aside accordingly the order of removal of the applicant from service dated 20.2 .98 (Annexure-6) is set aside. The applicant shall now be reinstated in service forthwith with full back wages. The purport of the order of the Tribunal is that the respondent was to be reinst ated with full back wages. The petitioner challenged the order of the Tribunal by filing a writ petition be ing WP(C) No.4456 of 2001 before this Court. That writ petition was dismissed as infructuous on 16th November, 2004. In the meanwhile, the respondent moved a contempt petition being Contempt Petiti on No.13 of 2001 in the Tribunal seeking implementation of the order passed by t he Tribunal dated 8th December, 2000. This contempt petition was not proceeded w ith by the Tribunal in view of the pendency of the writ petition in this Court. After the writ petition was dismissed as infructuous on 16th November, 2004 the petitioner accommodated the respondent in a Group D post. However, the order for payment of back wages was still not complied with. The respondent then moved a contempt petition being Contempt Petition No.11/2005 in the Tribunal seeking release of the back wages. However, by an order dated 2 8th February, 2006 the Tribunal disposed of the contempt petition giving liberty to the respondent to agitate his grievance of non-payment of back wages and sen iority in an appropriate forum. Thereafter, the respondent moved OA No.145/2007 (out of which this present proce eding arises) in which he sought implementation of the order passed by the Tribu nal, including payment of back wages and seniority. Having regard to the facts of the case, the Tribunal was of the view that the or der passed on 8.12.2000 in OA No.89/98 ought to be complied with and therefore, the petitioner was directed to grant all consequential benefits to the responden t on the basis that he was deemed to have been appointed in a Group D post from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 7.12.1993. The petitioner has challenged this order on the ground that during the pendency of the proceedings before the various forums, including this Court, the Responde nt had accepted another assignment with the petitioner. Our attention in this re gard has been drawn to a few orders particularly an order dated 12th August, 199 4 whereby the respondent has accepted an engagement offered by the petitioner. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be that the resp ondent had given up his rights to reinstatement and back wages. Unfortunately, we are not in agreement with the submission of learned counsel fo r the petitioner. The Respondent had filed an Original Application before the Tr ibunal against his termination and succeeded in that Original Application. The T ribunal directed his reinstatement with full back wages. The petitioner challeng ed the order of the Tribunal by filing a writ petition. However, the writ petiti on was not carried to its logical end and the petitioner did not press it on the ground that it had become infructuous. In fact, the petition had not become inf ructuous inasmuch as the petitioner had neither granted full back wages to the r espondent nor had he been reinstated in the post he was holding on his terminati on. Be that as it may, the respondent was compelled to initiate further proceedings for the implementation of the order passed by the Tribunal in his favour, which had attained finality. Merely because, during the interregnum, the respondent wa s financially or otherwise compelled to take up another assignment with the peti tioner, does not deprive him of the right to seek implementation of the order of the Tribunal given in his favour. We do not find any error in the impugned order of the Tribunal. The earlier ord er passed by the Tribunal on 8th December, 2000 must be implemented by the petit ioner in letter and spirit. This is what has been ordered by the Tribunal in the order under challenge. There is no merit in this writ petition and as such, it is dismissed. The petiti oner is granted two months time to fully implement the order of the Tribunal.