JUDGMENT The petitioner had filed this petition in the year 1989 alleging disobedience of the order passed by this Court on 10.10.87 in M.P. No. 733/87. The petitioner also prayed for further directions as contained in the prayer clause of the petition. In his prayer he has prayed for the payment of pay and allowances w.e.f. 1.7.84 and the interest thereon at the rate of 24% per annum, compoundable at the end of every accounting year from the due date of payment till it was actually paid. The State had filed the reply to the petition and had submitted that the petitioner was paid salary up to 15.6.84. The petitioner was thereafter transferred from Gwalior to Ratlam, where he did no join, thus absented from duty. Therefore, it was submitted that the petitioner was not entitled to get any salary from 15.6.84 onwards. The order dated 10.10.87 was passed against the respondent in ex parte, as the respondent was not noticed. In the order dated 10.10.87 this Court had observed that "We hope that the petitioner's salary shall be disbursed immediately, if found due, as prayed for. In case that is not done within a month, it shall be open to him to come up before this Court and, indeed, we direct that the representation of the petitioner in the form of notice must be disposed of within a month." In the above order dated 10.10.87 it was observed by this Court that the salary may be paid. if found due. The respondent in that regard had submitted that the salary had not been found due. In the order there are no particulars about the representation or of the notice, which was required to be disposed of within a month. The respondent State had made its stand very clear in its reply. It was further submitted that the matter went up to the Apex Court. It was found by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the writ petition could not be entertained by the High Court, as the subject matter was under consideration before the appellate Court, arising out of the suit pending before the District Judge. It was made clear by the Apex Court that no person can pursue remedy simultaneously before the civil Court as well as before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. After the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court. It was made clear by the Apex Court that no person can pursue remedy simultaneously before the civil Court as well as before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. After the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court. the same Bench of this Court, which had passed the order dated 10.10.87 had considered the petitioner's case on 12.11.87 and had observed that in view of the order of the Apex Court it appears that the petitioner is not entitled for anything more than what has already been deposited by the State. It was further observed that in the circumstances, the petitioner ought to approach the Hon'ble Supreme Court in order to get clarification of the order, if he was so advised. The petitioner therefore, could not get any relief as prayed by him in this petition. It may further be observed that after the pending appeal of the petitioner was decided, he has filed the execution proceeding and it would now be for the executing Court to grant him the decreed relief in accordance with law. In the facts and circumstances, we have found no merit in this petition and the same is therefore dismissed.