ORAL JUDGMENT KS JHAVERI, J. 1. The present appeal is filed challenging the order dated 20.02.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 1141 of 2013 whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the present respondent. 2. The respondent’s husband was working as Craft Instructor Motor Mechanic in the office of appellant no.2. The deceased husband of the respondent received charge-sheet on 22.05.2002 for alleged misconduct of dereliction in duty. The charge-sheet culminated into inquiry and punishment order of compulsory retirement on 29.09.2003. The deceased husband of the respondent preferred appeal being Appeal No.379 of 2003 before the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal, Gandhinagar, challenging the order of compulsory retirement dated 29.09.2003. The Tribunal while partly allowing the appeal on 29.11.2004, modified the punishment of compulsory retirement with that of reduction of pay to the minimum of pay-scale for a period of 5 years and he was ordered to be reinstated in service expeditiously. The Tribunal further observed that he would not be entitled for back wages for the period since the impugned order of 29.09.2003. However, the authorities were directed to regularize the intervening period as leave admissible to him or as extraordinary leave as per relevant rules. 2.1 The Tribunal's order dated 29.11.2004 was carried into challenge by preferring SCA No.11572 of 2005 before this Court. This Court considering the fact that the husband of respondent had expired by then directed the appellants to consider the case of the respondent sympathetically. However, when the matter was not considered by the appellants, the respondent filed the present petition. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and therefore the appellants have preferred the present appeal challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 3. Mr. Rakesh Patel, learned AGP appearing for the appellants submitted that the learned Single Judge has not considered that even the Tribunal vide modifying the order of punishment of compulsory retirement into reduction of pay-scale have clearly recorded to the effect that all the charges levelled against the husband of the respondent are proved, however, only on sympathetic ground and to give another chance to improve the punishment was reduced. He submitted that when the charges were proved beyond reasonable doubt, the learned Single Judge ought not to have allowed the writ petition. 4. Mr. Khamborja, learned advocate appearing for Mr. He submitted that when the charges were proved beyond reasonable doubt, the learned Single Judge ought not to have allowed the writ petition. 4. Mr. Khamborja, learned advocate appearing for Mr. N.K. Majmudar, learned advocate for the respondent submitted that the learned Single Judge was well within jurisdiction in passing the impugned order and therefore the same does not call for any interference by this court. He submitted that even otherwise the employee has already expired. 5. We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. The learned Single Judge in paras 10 to 12 observed as under: “10. This Court is at pain to record that the entire approach on the part of all the concerned betrays lack of sensitivity, tendency and propensity to avoid the legitimate claim on whatever pretext easily available without it being legal or otherwise and compelling citizens like petitioner to approach the Court which otherwise would have been absolutely avoided and proper respite would have been available to the petitioner. The order of the Tribunal is not in any manner modified, changed, altered or whittled down or watered down by this Court and the challenge to it contain in writ petition being SCA No.11572 of 2005 has resulted into disposal of the petition with or rather direction to the authorities to consider the entire issue with due sympathy. Unfortunate it is that the concerned and responsible for taking decision have evinced scant disregard to rule of law or rather lack of understanding or rather deliberate show off with a view to avoid the payment liability, treated the matter as if there was any discretion in them in deciding in case of the petitioner for the relief. The facts remain to be noted that all the concerned were required to obey and implement the order of the Tribunal in its true spirit and letter. The order of the Tribunal unequivocally made it clear that the deceased husband, was to be reinstated and he was not to be paid his back wages and the process of reinstatement was to be undertaken expeditiously. 11. The Court is of the considered view that the Tribunal's order is dated 29.11.2004 which ought to have been complied with expeditiously. The order of the Tribunal unequivocally made it clear that the deceased husband, was to be reinstated and he was not to be paid his back wages and the process of reinstatement was to be undertaken expeditiously. 11. The Court is of the considered view that the Tribunal's order is dated 29.11.2004 which ought to have been complied with expeditiously. Unfortunate it is that no regard is shown to the order, as without complying with the same, nobody bothered to even prefer petition challenging the same and obtain any order. The order of stay is dated 17.06.2005 thus from 29.11.2004 to 17.06.2005, there was no stay at all operating against the order of Tribunal which contains specific direction to the authorities to expeditiously reinstate the appellant/petitioner. The period of about 6 months in obtaining the interim order stare in the face of the State, as it has remained unexplained. The stay order inured till the disposal of this petition which came to be disposed of on 06.05.2010. The petitioner's husband was unfortunately died on 25.10.2006, as submitted by learned advocate for the petitioner. The petitioner's husband has joined in job on 24.04.1985 and he died on 25.10.2006. The question arises as to whether did State have any authority in law to overlook or ignore the binding of the decision of the Tribunal dated 29.11.2004. Even if, for the sake of examining without holding that the petitioner could not frame her challenge appropriately for relief, the answer would be empathetic 'No', as there is no waiver to the fundamental rights and State cannot be permitted to deny legitimately to fruits of the litigation in which the State has not bothered to bring the challenge to its logical conclusion. The order passed by this Court on 06.05.2010 can not be said to be in any manner has any effect of modifying and/or altering the order of Tribunal. The State has not bothered to neither seek logical conclusion on the order nor has State challenged the said order in Appellate Forum, meaning thereby the State has accepted that order. When the State has accepted the order and the order is not in any manner modifying and/or altering, the Tribunal, in other words the order of Tribunal is rather sustained by this Court and the sustaining of the order of the Tribunal is also accepted by the State. When the State has accepted the order and the order is not in any manner modifying and/or altering, the Tribunal, in other words the order of Tribunal is rather sustained by this Court and the sustaining of the order of the Tribunal is also accepted by the State. Had State been leveling any other impression, question arises as to whether can State be permitted to have a shelter on so called ignorance and/or misinformation or lack of information in this behalf so as to avoid the legitimate claim which accrues from the order of Tribunal. The answer is empathetic 'No'. 12. The order of Tribunal, therefore, in my view is revived, as the stay order granted in the interregnum period shall be of no avail to anyone, as it goes without saying that it need not be emphasized that the said order, that is interim order, ultimately are governed by the final outcome of the petition and the final outcome of the petition is order dated 06.05.2010 in which the Court while disposing of the petition has not whittled down in any manner the order nor has the State taken care to see to it that the petitioner who was the respondent therein was giving up any rights accruing from the order. It would have been different situation if the petitioner who are the respondent therein had expressly given up her rights in view of the order, some substantive consideration, but the entire order is read as it is it do not indicate anywhere that there was any other consensus coming forward from the petitioner. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal is required to be given its full meaning which would indicate that the petitioner's husband was required to be treated as if he was in service. The Tribunal held that the petitioner's husband was to be reinstated with expeditious exercise and the reasonable expeditious exercise would not be more than 2 months from the date of communication of the order. Bearing this, the reinstatement could not have been denied. The Tribunal held that the petitioner's husband was to be reinstated with expeditious exercise and the reasonable expeditious exercise would not be more than 2 months from the date of communication of the order. Bearing this, the reinstatement could not have been denied. Therefore, from 01.02.2005, the petitioner's husband is said to have been in job or reinstated and on that basis he is required to be treated for all the consequential benefits flowing therefrom including wages, retirement benefits admissible on that basis, as neither the Director-respondent No.2 nor the Finance Department has any right to resurrect the charges which have been culminated into ultimate punishment of reduction of lowest scale for 5 years. That punishment being there, the same can not be held against the petitioner's husband in any other purpose.” 6. Considering the fact that the order of the Tribunal unequivocally made it clear that the deceased husband of the present respondent was to be reinstated and he was not to be paid his back wages and the process of reinstatement was to be undertaken expeditiously, and the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 11572 of 2005 directed the appellants to sympathetically consider the case of the respondent, the learned Single Judge was justified in passing the impugned order. Even otherwise in view of the fact that the respondent’s husband – employee has already expired we are not inclined to disturb the order passed by the learned Single Judge. We are in complete agreement with the reasonings adopted and findings arrived at by the learned Single Judge. The appeal is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. The appellants are directed to comply with the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court within a period one month from today.