ORDER 1. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed that the orders dated 16.9.2008 (Annexure P-15) and 15.7.2009 (Annexure P-16) be set aside. It is further prayed that the order passed in Writ Appeal No.226/2006 dated 20.9.2007 be implemented by giving seniority to the petitioner on the post of LDC w.e.f. 25.6.1986. 2. Draped in brevity, the relevant facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as a daily wager on 21.6.1984. By resolution dated 25.6.1986 (Annexure P-4), it was decided to appoint the petitioner as LDC on permanent basis in the scale of Rs.515-800/-. However, on 16.4.1998 (Annexure P-9) the petitioner was regularized in the pay scale of Rs.950-1530/-. The petitioner assailed this regularization order in Writ Petition No.21/1999. This writ petition was decided on 21.6.2006. The writ Court directed the respondent to regularize the services of petitioner w.e.f. 25.6.1986 i.e. the date of passing resolution (Annexure P-8). In addition, they were directed to grant seniority and other consequential benefits to the petitioner. This judgment was put to test by respondent No.5 in Writ Appeal No.214/2006. The said writ appeal was dismissed on 20.9.2007. The respondent-corporation also filed Writ Appeal No.226/2006 against judgment passed in Writ Petition No.21/1999 which was disposed of on 20.9.2007 by a consent order. 3. The Division Bench directed that present petitioner should be treated as regularized w.e.f. 25.6.1986 and he be given all consequential benefits including promotion except wages. Petitioner shall not be entitled to get seniority over respondents No.2 to 6. A review petition filed against the said order (Review Petition No.276/2009) was dismissed on 16.9.2009. Since order of Division Bench was not complied with, petitioner filed Contempt Petition No.626/2009 which was disposed of on 25.4.2012 by giving liberty to the petitioner to file independent case. 4. The aforesaid factual backdrop shows that the petitioner has faught a long drawn battle in the corridors of the Court. The respondent initially passed the order dated 16.9.2008 (Annexure P-16). This order was subsequently withdrawn by order dated 15.7.2009 (Annexure P-17). 5. Shri K.N. Gupta, learned Senior Counsel submits that petitioner will be satisfied if order dated 16.9.2008 (Annexure P-16) is directed to be implemented. Petitioner, accordingly confined his relief to the extent of implementation of order dated 16.9.2008. 6. The respondent initially passed the order dated 16.9.2008 (Annexure P-16). This order was subsequently withdrawn by order dated 15.7.2009 (Annexure P-17). 5. Shri K.N. Gupta, learned Senior Counsel submits that petitioner will be satisfied if order dated 16.9.2008 (Annexure P-16) is directed to be implemented. Petitioner, accordingly confined his relief to the extent of implementation of order dated 16.9.2008. 6. The stand of the petitioner is that the petitioner needs to be regularized as LDC w.e.f. 25.6.1986 with all consequential benefits except arrears of back wages. To great extent, this grievance of petitioner is redressed by order dated 16.9.2008. There is no justification in cancelling this order by Annexure P-17. The petitioner contended that order Annexure P-17 runs contrary to the orders passed by this Court. 7. Per contra, Shri Vivek Khedkar submits that in Writ Petition No.21/1999, petitioner prayed certain relief. It was relating to regularization on the post of Clerk, seniority over and above to respondents No.3 to 7 and payment of arrears. By filing memo of said writ petition (Annexure R-1), it is urged that before filing of Writ Petition No.21/1999, the petitioner was regularized in the year 1998 vide Annexure P-9 on the post of Time Keeper. The said order was never challenged by the petitioner in any proceedings. On the contrary in Writ Petition No.21/1999, the petitioner himself stated that he was regularized on the post of Clerk Grade-III. The direction was prayed for to regularize him as Clerk from 4.7.1984/25.6.1986. Shri Khedkar contended that the direction was given by this Court to regularize the petitioner w.e.f. 25.6.1986. The order passed in writ appeal was a consent order. Since before initiation of said litigation, the petitioner was already regularized on the post of Time Keeper, no relief is due to him. In view of aforesaid, respondent regularized the petitioner as a Time Keeper from 25.6.1986 and granted him seniority from such date and on same post of Time Keeper. 8. The respondent has filed written synopsis and repeatedly canvassed the said stand. He has supported the orders Annexures P-15 and P-16 by contending that higher pay was rightly granted from 2001. Reliance is placed on a scheme dated 25.4.2000, whereby the Kramonnati Scheme was introduced. 9. No other point is pressed by learned counsel for the parties. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 11. Reliance is placed on a scheme dated 25.4.2000, whereby the Kramonnati Scheme was introduced. 9. No other point is pressed by learned counsel for the parties. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 11. A plain reading of resolution dated 25.6.1986 (Annexure P-4) shows that the decision was taken to make the petitioner permanent on the post of Clerk. This Court in Writ Petition No. 21/1999 directed that petitioner be regularized w.e.f. 25.6.1986, which is the date of passing of resolution. Thus, the right crystallized for regularization is relateable to the said resolution. The Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.226/2006 directed that petitioner shall be treated as regularized w.e.f. 25.6.1986. Thus, the writ Court and writ appellate Court directed regularization from the date of issuance of resolution. Hence, regularization should be on the post which is mentioned in the resolution. The stand of respondent is that before filing the said litigation, the petitioner was already regularized on 16.4.1998 (Annexure P-9). Hence, he cannot seek regularization on any other post. 12. I do not find any merit in the said contention. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.21/1999 much after passing of order dated 16.4.1998. it was open to the respondent to contest the said writ petition and writ appeal by contending that regularization prior to 16.4.1998 and on a different post than the post of Time Keeper is not permissible. The Corporation could not succeed in convincing this Court about the regularization order dated 16.4.1998. Once the Single and Division Bench of this Court passed orders for his regularization from 25.6.1986, in my view the order dated 16.4.1998 has lost its complete shine. Whether or not, this order is interfered with, fact remains that Court directed regularization from an early date which is the date of passing of resolution. The order Annexure P-9 cannot be a hurdle for the petitioner for yet another reason. The order passed by writ appellate Court is a consent order. Hence, respondent cannot take shelter of Annexure P-9 in this round of litigation. 13. The respondent ultimately passed the order dated 16.9.2008 (Annexure P-16). The respondent accepted the appointment/regularization of petitioner from 25.6.1986. Accordingly, first Kramonnati scale of Rs.3500-5200 was directed to be given from 1.4.2001 and arrears were directed to be paid from the said date. This order was cancelled by Annexure P-17 dated 15.7.2009. 13. The respondent ultimately passed the order dated 16.9.2008 (Annexure P-16). The respondent accepted the appointment/regularization of petitioner from 25.6.1986. Accordingly, first Kramonnati scale of Rs.3500-5200 was directed to be given from 1.4.2001 and arrears were directed to be paid from the said date. This order was cancelled by Annexure P-17 dated 15.7.2009. The question is whether this cancellation order is in accordance with law. 14. Before dealing with the matter further, it is relevant to quote Annexure P-16 dated 16.9.2008, which reads as under : ßvkns'k ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; [k.MihB] Xokfy;j dh ;kfpdk Ø-21@99 vt; flag Bkdqj fo#) uxj fuxe ,oa vU; esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 26-6-2006 ,oa vihy izdj.k Øekad 226@06 cuke vt; flag ,oa vU; esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 20-9-2007 rFkk voekuuk izdj.k Øekad 140@2008 esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 24-3-2008 ds ikyu esas foHkkxh; inksUufr lfefr ds izfrosnu fnukad 16-5-2008 dh vuq'kalk vuqlkj Jh vt; flag Bkdqj iq= Jh fot; flag] uxj fuxe] Xokfy;j dks fnukad 25-6-1986 ls osrueku 950&1530 iqujhf{kr 3050&4590 fu;qfDr fu;fer ekU; fd;k tkrk gSA ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; esa izLrqr ;kfpdk Ø-226@06 esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 20-9-2007A “the direction that the respondent no.1 shall be treated as regularized w.e.f. 25.6.1986 and he will be given all consequential benefits including promotion except wages and he will not claim seniority above respondents No.2 to 6. On this learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and other respondents have no objection for final disposal of this writ appeal with the aforesaid consent direction. Consequentially, this appeal is disposed of the aforesaid consent order as indicated above,” vkns'kkuqlkj gh Jh vt; flag Bkdqj dks varj osru dks NksM+dj inksUufr lfgr lHkh lqlaxr ykHk ikus dh ik=rk gksxh rFkk Jh vt; flag Bkdqj izfroknh Ø-2 yxk;r 6 Jh jktsUnz dqekj 'kekZ] Jh txnh'k vjksjk] Jh jktsUnz flag dq'kokgk] Jh fnfXot; flag tknkSu] Jh jkds'k feÙky ls ofj"Brk dk Dyse ugha djsaxs vkSj fnukad 25-6-1986 ls 15-4-1998 rd dh vof/k dsoy osruo`f) dh x.kuk ds fy;s ekU; gksxh bldk varj osru ikus dh ik=rk ugha gksxhA ekuuh; U;k;ky; ds vkns'kkuqlkj fu;qfDr@fu;ferhdj.k 25-6-1986 ls ekU; gksus ls izFke ØeksUufr osrueku 3500&5200 fnukad 1-4-2001 ls ikus dh ik=rk fjLiksUMsaV ,d dks gksus ls ØeksUur osrueku dh Lohd`fr nh tkdj osru ykHk 1-4-2001 ls fn;k tkuk Lohd`r fd;k tkrk gSA lacaf/kr foHkkxkf/kdkjh rn~uqlkj iqu% osru fu/kkZj.k djsa rFkk ys[kkf/kdkjh fuèkkZfjr osrueku dk ijh{k.k dj osru Hkqxrku djsaA vk;qDr uxj fuxe] Xokfy;jAÞ 15. As noticed, the petitioner has confined his prayer to the extent of upholding and implementation of order Annexure P-16. In this view of the matter, it is interesting to see about the reply of respondent on the validity of Annexure P-16. In the reply, it is averred as under : “Thus, in pursuance to the orders passed by the writ Court and writ appellate Court, respondents were required to grant the seniority in his initial cadre with effect from 25.6.1986 and that has been granted by virtual of orders Annexures P-15 and Annexure P-16. It is important to note that the aforesaid order was passed after initiation of contempt proceeding (Contempt Petition No. 626/2009) and in the Contempt proceeding order was passed by this Court on 25.4.2012 and it has been hold that respondents have not committed any Contempt of Court. However, only relief has been granted to the petitioner that he may raise his grievance in respect of the promotion only. Because, as per the rules, there is no avenue of promotion but other benefits i.e. time bound/kramonnati benefit has already been granted to the petitioner, therefore, now at this stage order Annexure P-15 and P-16 cannot be challenged when it has been found that order has been passed in conformity with the order passed in writ appeal.” (Para 6). (Emphasis Supplied) 16. The stand of respondent is in support of Annexure P-16. The respondent, in no uncertain terms, contended that Annexure P-16 has been passed in conformity with the order passed in writ appeal. Interestingly, in written synopsis, it is averred as under : “That as far as orders contained in Annexure P-15 and P-16 the benefit of higher pay-scale (Kramonnati) has rightly been granted tot he petitioner from 2001 because the State Government implemented the scheme in all the Municipal Corporation of the State of Madhya Pradesh vide its order dated 25.4.2000.” (Para 4). (Emphasis Supplied) 17. In view of aforesaid stand taken in reply and written synopsis, it is clear that respondent has also admitted that Annexure P-16 is passed in consonance with the order of this Court in writ appeal. The respondent has not contended that Annexure P-16 is illegal or bad in law. However, Annexure P-17 shows that the order dated 16.9.2008 (Annexure P-9) is cancelled. No reason for such cancellation is given. The respondent has not contended that Annexure P-16 is illegal or bad in law. However, Annexure P-17 shows that the order dated 16.9.2008 (Annexure P-9) is cancelled. No reason for such cancellation is given. In view of specific stand taken by the respondent in support of Annexure P-16, the Annexure P-17 cannot be permitted to stand. Thus, there is no justification in not implementing the same. 18. Resultantly, the limited relief prayed for deserves to be granted. Accordingly, the order dated 15.7.2009 (Annexure P-17), by which the order dated 16.9.2008 was cancelled, is set aside. The respondent shall implement the order dated 16.9.2008 (Annexure P-16) within 30 days from the date of communication of this order. Needless to mention that consequential benefits arising out of said order must be paid within aforesaid time. Petition is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. No cost.