ORDER Ajit Kumar Sinha, J. 1. The present writ petition has been preferred for the following reliefs: 1. For an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to immediately make payment of the salary of the petitioner for the period 21.2.1990 to 31.3.1995 on the ground that for this period she had been restrained from doing her duty by the State authorities, namely M/o Incharge PHC/Dhanbad and the Civil Surgeon, Dhanbad, (i) Firstly by unilateral relieving in view of an illegal cancellation order to her original transfer order dated 11.8.1989, because the disputed cancellation order was finally decided and declared illegal and ultimately set aside under order dated 13.5.1991 in T.S./24/90 passed by the Addl. Munsif Ist. Dhanbad and contesting against the same J/Drs. Repeatedly lost twice at District level but never went before any higher Court challenging the decree itself thereafter up-till date; and (ii) secondly by ignoring and neglecting compliance of such a Court order-cum-decree, most illegally and forcibly being quite aware of its, unchanged existence and validity. This awareness is evident from State's submission before High Court which held in para-2 of its order dated 22.12.1994 in C.W.J.C No. 3409/94 (R) as under: "It is submitted that though the decree was passed setting aside the order of transfer, assets belonging to the State are being attached, as if money-decree was passed for arrears of salary. 2. For a further writ commanding upon the respondents to immediately make arrangement to pay the salary of petitioner along with an interest @ 18% per annum for the harassment and humiliation caused to her at the age of retirement, 3. To impose heavy cost upon the respondents for their arbitrary act violating all the norms and procedure established by law. 2. The main contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that at least she is entitled to the salary for the period 21.2.1990 to 31.3.1995 as has been ordered in C.R. No. 264/95 (R) dated 22.4.1996. 3. The next contention is that even though the revision preferred by the State has been allowed but there is a specific direction to consider the payment of salary with arrears. 4. 3. The next contention is that even though the revision preferred by the State has been allowed but there is a specific direction to consider the payment of salary with arrears. 4. I have perused the pleadings and heard the argument, even in the counter-affidavit filed by the State it has been specifically stated at paragraph 12 that the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, directed for cancellation of the transfer and posting which was done vide order No. 1861 dated 11.8.1989 vide his letter No 454 dated 20.2.1990 meaning thereby that a fresh transfer by a competent authority was issued even though the same was not communicated to the petitioner. 5. Considering the entire facts and circumstance of the case, it will be in the interest of justice to direct the respondent-State to take steps issued by this Hon'ble Court, which is quoted as under: ...the Civil Surgeon, Dhanbad, shall consider the payment of salary of the opposite party with arrears if she really worked in his administrative capacity, within three months next. This observation has been made on an equitable relief to be granted to opposite party.... 6. There is another aspect of the matter. The period of salary claimed is the period when the petitioner was refused to continue in the work and thus it cannot be attributed to her and even otherwise when the basis of the refusal itself has been recalled then certainly it requires consideration. 7. The respondents are accordingly directed to take a decision within a period of three months in accordance with law and communicate the same by a speaking order to the petitioner and if the petitioner is otherwise entitled to the arrears of salary for the period, the same shall be given in accordance with law. 8. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of.