JUDGMENT : Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The brief facts which are out from the petition that the petitioner-Bheek Singh retired as Junior Engineer from the Public Works Department. Before retirement he had filed a D.B Civil Writ Petition No. 1397/1986 before this Court claiming that he should be declared as having been appointed on regular basis from the initial date it should not be treated as work charge employee. This Court vide order dated 11.03.1987 allowed the writ petition as under:- "We, therefore, allow this writ petition and declare that the petitioner was appointed as Surveyor on a regular basis and was never appointed as work-charge basis. All other consequential benefits shall follow as a result of this declaration. Parties shall bear their own costs." 3. The order passed by the Court Division Bench was not complied with and the petitioner filed D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No.254/1987, which was disposed of vide order dated 27.11.1992 in following terms as under:- "In the facts and circumstances of this case the respondents are directed to examine the matter and if the contention of the petitioner is found to be correct then he should be fixed in the pay-scale Rules of 1983 and 1987 according to the pay-scale which is applicable to him. With these observations, the contempt petition stands disposed-of." 4. When nothing was done by the respondents and the petitioner was continued to be treated as work charge employee and was denied regular pay scale of sub-engineer/junior engineer, the petitioner filed another S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3173/1997. 5. In the writ petition petitioner prayed that the respondents be directed to pay fixation on petitioner treating him as a regular junior engineer from initial date of appointment and accordingly grant him pay scale of junior engineer with all consequential benefits of pay fixation under the pay scale rules from time to time. He further prayed that he may be given benefits of Circular date 25.01.1992 from grant of selection grade on completion of 9 years, 18 years and 27 years of service and accordingly has pension be revised arrears thereto be paid along with interest as well as allowances, to which, he was entitled under the pay scale from time to time be also released allowed with arrears. 6. 6. This Court vide order dated 10.04.2014, passed an order, directing the Chief-Engineer to consider the entire case of the petitioner and pass an appropriate speaking order, taking into consideration the earlier orders passed by this Court and to re-examine the relief which petitioner was praying for. It was further directed that if the relief cannot be granted, reasons for not granting the same shall be assigned in the order. 7. By way of Additional affidavit and amendment in writ petition the petitioner has placed on record the order dated 14.08.2014 said to have been passed in compliance of the order passed by this Court dated 10.04.2014. The said order is signed by then Chief-Engineer Sh. R.K. Gupta, who is stated to be the Chief-Engineer and Additional Secretary P.W.D. 8. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 14.08.2014 and has pointed out according to the order, he was still treated as the work-charge employee till date of his retirement. Not only this pay-scale to which the petitioner was entitled under the revised pay-scale Rules 1976, 1983, 1987 and 1989 are erroneous and do not concern to the table provided under the concerned revised pay-scale Rules assigning pay-scale to Junior-Engineer. 9. Further it is stated that for the first time the post of junior engineer was bifurcated into two sub-posts namely (Junior-Engineer Diploma holder and Junior-Engineer non-Diploma holder) under the Pay Scale Rules 1989. Only and therefore, prior to 1989 the petitioner was entitled to be paid the pay scale provided under the Pay Scale Rules 1976, 1983 and 1987 which was admissible to junior engineer. It is submitted that the post of junior engineer or surveyor have been treated alike under the Rajasthan Service of Engineer Building and Road Branch subordinate Rules, 1954. In view thereof, it is submitted that the petitioner was required to be fixed in the pay scale of junior engineer without making any difference on the basis of educational qualification till 1989 Pay Scale Rule came into force. 10. It is further submitted that the impugned action of the respondent treating the petitioner as work charge employee and denying the pay scale of junior engineer amounts to deliberate and wilful disobeyenc of the directions of this Court. 10. It is further submitted that the impugned action of the respondent treating the petitioner as work charge employee and denying the pay scale of junior engineer amounts to deliberate and wilful disobeyenc of the directions of this Court. It is submitted that the Chief-Engineer who passed the vide order dated 14.08.2014 has not complied is appointed it all to the orders passed by this Court and has prayed that he should be granted pay scale of 640 under the Pay Scale Rules 1983, 1987 and 1989. 11. On the other hand counsel for the respondents submits that the vide order dated 14.08.2014 does not call for interference. In view of the fact that pay scale of junior engineer degree holder and junior engineer Diploma holder have been separately assigned under the Pay Scale Rules of 1989 which was brought into force 01.09.1989. 12. Heard both the counsels and reflecting to the facts of the case, it is noted that a look at the Pay-Scale Rules, 1976 would show that in 1976 the pay-scale of Junior-Engineer (J.E) was Rs.470-830 in 1983 it was Rs.640-1180, in 1987 it was Rs.1160-2360. However, in the revised pay-scale Rules, 1989 the pay-scale of Junior Engineer, non-diploma holder was fixed as Rs.1400-2360. The pay-scale Rules, 1989 were brought into force with effect from 01.09.1988 and, thus, accordingly the petitioner's pay-scales were required to be fixed. 13. A look at the order dated 14.08.2014, shows that the concerned Chief Engineer has only mentioned the facts which were brought before him by his subordinate officers. He has only mentioned that conclusion can be drawn in House Committee in terms of the Rules which apparently is nothing let a complete eye-wash. The order dated 14.08.2014 reflects the manner in which Court orders are being interpreted by the authorities with a view to depriving the pension benefits which have already been granted by this Court. 14. Not only this, in spite of the fact that there is a Division Bench order declaring the petitioner as regular Surveyor and not a work-charge employee, the concerned Chief-Engineer has completely ignored the Court's orders treated the petitioner as work charge employee and has proceeded to pass an order resulting in denial of the benefits which have already been granted to him by the Court in earlier proceedings. 15. 15. It is also seen that although the petitioner retired in 1995, even gratuity has not been paid and the matter has been left open for Pension Department and Treasury to do the needful. 16. Prima facie order dated 14.08.2014, duly signed by the Sh. R.K. Gupta, the then Chief-Engineer shows his lack of bona fides and complete dis-respect of the Court's orders. 17. The counsel for the respondent informs that the concerned Chief-Engineer has already retired. However, this Court finds under the Pension Rules 1996, particularly Rule 7 of the Pension Rules departmental action can be under taken within four years of retirement. 18. Considering the fact that the concerned officer Sh. R.K. Gupta, has completely ignored the Court's orders resulting in denial of pension and pension benefits to petitioner in spite of there being a specific order. I deem it appropriate to direct the Principal Secretary, D.O.P and the Principal Secretary P.W.D to initiate departmental proceedings against the concerned erring Chief-Engineer and complete the enquiry within a period of six months henceforth and submit a report to this Court of the result thereto. 19. On merits it seems that the petitioner has been linguishing for relief since long. This Court finds that in spite of there being specific pay-scale Rules as mentioned herein above, no reason has come forward for not releasing the pay-scale benefits to the concerned petitioner after the judgment was delivered by the Division Bench in his favor declaring him to be a regular surveyor vide order dated 11.03.1987 and not a work charge employee. 20. This Court has already granted time to the Government while disposing of the contempt petition as also while passing order dated 10.04.2014, to comply with the orders but they have shown a complete lackness and ignorance to the Court's orders. This Court directs that the respondent shall now fixes the pay of the petitioner under the pay-scale Rules from time to time. In Revised Pay Scale Rules, 1983 from Rs.470-830 to Rs.640-1160 and made Revised Pay Scale Rules, 1987 from Rs.640-1180 to Rs.1160-2360 and Revised Pay Scale Rule, 1989 from Rs.1160-2360 to 1400-2360 treating him as a regular Surveyor from his initial date of appointment. 21. In Revised Pay Scale Rules, 1983 from Rs.470-830 to Rs.640-1160 and made Revised Pay Scale Rules, 1987 from Rs.640-1180 to Rs.1160-2360 and Revised Pay Scale Rule, 1989 from Rs.1160-2360 to 1400-2360 treating him as a regular Surveyor from his initial date of appointment. 21. After fixation of his salary under the pay-scale Rules grant him benefits of selection scale on completion of 9 years, 18 years and 27 years of service and release arrears to him within a period of two months herein above. 22. So far as the pension and gratuity and other retiral benefits as well as benefits during the period of service are concerned the same shall also be released within said period itself along with interest @ of 9% per annum. The interest on the arrears shall be recovered from the errying officer which may also include the concerned Chief Engineer and the concerned Accounts Department Officers, who were required to make pay fixations. 23. The petitioner has also prayed with regard to treating him retired from 30.09.1995, however, I find that the said issue has not been seriously challenged by him at the relevant time. There are no provisions changing the date of voluntary retirement under the rules, prevailing at that time. The only provision therein is to withdraw voluntary retirement application and after no decision is taken on the voluntary retirement application within a period of three months thereto, the concerned employee shall be deemed to have retired. 24. Since there is no provision of changing the date of voluntary retirement available under the rules, such option was not available to the petitioner and therefore, the prayer shifting from 30.06.1995 to 30.09.1995 is wholly misconceived. 25. In view thereof, the writ petition is allowed to the extent of arrears relating to grant of pay-scales as well as pension and retiral benefits allowed with interest as laid down herein above. However, it has now become necessary that Government Officer should be held accountable for unnecessarily litigation coming to this Court and the interest which is to be paid to the suffering employee must be recovered from their salary as per the directions given herein above. The writ petition is allowed. 26. Accordingly, the cost is made easy.