S. K. KESHOTE, J. ( 1 ) ). Sufferings of the petitioner, despite the fact that this court on 29-1-1982 decided the earlier petition in her favour and order of dismissal from service has not only been quashed but also declared to be null and void and ineffective, still continues. How the respondents treat the decision of this Court is clearly exhibited in this litigation. Yet another aspect to be noted is how this Court is helpless to give a person, whose dismissal order has been held to be nullity by this Court on 21-9-1982, all the reliefs for twelve years. Here the system is to be blamed. Otherwise, this category of cases need to be dealt with forthwith. ( 2 ) ). The petitioner who was employed by Kheda District Panchayat at Nadiad was dismissed from service vide order dated 11-8-1977 giving effect from 18-7- 1975. This order of dismissal was challenged by the petitioner before this Court by filing Special Civil Application No. 877 of 1988. That writ petition was decided by this Court on 29-1-1982 and the same was allowed. The order of dismissal of the petitioner from service by Kheda District Panchayat was quashed and set aside as being found null and void and ineffective. Copy of the judgment of this Court dated 29-1-1982 is produced at Annexure-C. The petitioner was reinstated in service by the respondents but she has not been given the benefit of back wages etc. , for the interregnum, i. e. , 18-7-1975 to 29-1-1982, the date of dismissal and the date of judgment of this Court. After her reinstatement in service, the petitioner approached the respondent authorities from time to time for implementation of the decision of this Court in full. But as usual, no heed was paid to her prayers. She also approached the District Education Officer, Kheda District, by filing representation, a copy of which has been produced at Annexure-D. But that authority also could not prove to be of any help to the petitioner. After sending some reminders the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this petition. ( 3 ) ). This Court, possibly looking to the nature of the case, issued notice to the respondents on 15-12-1983, but they have not responded to the same and as such on 23rd January, 1984 the Court has issued Rule. After sending some reminders the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this petition. ( 3 ) ). This Court, possibly looking to the nature of the case, issued notice to the respondents on 15-12-1983, but they have not responded to the same and as such on 23rd January, 1984 the Court has issued Rule. The respondents have not cared to file reply to the writ petition till date. ( 4 ) ). Learned Counsel for the petitioner was asked by the Court as to why the judgment was not given effect to in toto. He submitted that nothing has been given in writing to the petitioner, but she has been told in the office that there is no direction by this Court in the judgment to give her all other benefits. That seems to be correct. The respondents take the things in the way as the learned Counsel for the petitioner has stated. This technical approach may be justified as an excuse in contempt proceedings, but not in these proceedings. ( 5 ) ). When the order of dismissal of the petitioner was quashed and set aside by this Court as being null and void and ineffective, the petitioner became entitled for all consequential benefits. I agree with the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that when the order of dismissal from service of the petitioner was held null and void, the petitioner is entitled to be paid salary on the footing as if she has continued in service. If the order is nullity, then it will never be in existence in the eye of law. It is an order inoperative and ineffective since inception. The order should be treated as if it was not passed. The petitioner, in the circumstances, was not only entitled to reinstatement but for all consequential benefits, i. e. , full salary, annual increments, revision of pay-scale, if any, and all other benefits like seniority, consequential right of consideration for promotion from the date her juniors were given promotion. Once the order has been declared to be null and void by this Court, it is implicit in the order that consequential benefits were to be given to the petitioner. ( 6 ) ). In the result, this writ petition is allowed. Once the order has been declared to be null and void by this Court, it is implicit in the order that consequential benefits were to be given to the petitioner. ( 6 ) ). In the result, this writ petition is allowed. It is hereby declared that the petitioner is entitled to the back wages for the interregnum with all other consequential benefits, like annual increments, revision of pay-scale, if any, stagnation benefits, seniority and right of consideration for promotion from the date on which her junior has been promoted and promotion, in case she is found suitable, with all consequential financial benefits. The respondents are directed to determine the arrears of back wages in terms of the order of this Court within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The exercise of giving benefits to the petitioner as aforesaid should be completed within a period of four months. The petitioner shall be paid the arrears of amount of back wages and other benefits within a period of two months thereafter, i. e. , after determination of the amount within the time as aforesaid. Respondents are further directed to pay to the petitioner interest on the amount of arrears at the rate of 12% per annum from the due date till payment. The respondents shall pay to the petitioner Rs. 2,000. 00 as cost of this litigation. Rule made absolute accordingly. .