JUDGMENT : P.P. Bhatt, J. 1. By way of present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of writ, order or directions, directing the respondents to immediately pay to the petitioner his full salary with all consequential benefits and emoluments as per the spirit of the judgment dated 20.08.1999 passed in Special Civil Application No. 3959 of 1985 with interest thereon till the date of actual payment. 2. It is also prayed that it may be declared that the petitioner is entitled to get full salary and emoluments during his suspension period, with the regular increments in salary. The petitioner has also prayed that it may be declared that the petitioner is entitled for the higher pay scale as per the Government Rules, as is paid to other employees. Accordingly, respondents may be directed to pay the higher pay scale to the petitioner and pay all arrears of salary and the allowances, and all other service benefits and the difference in the emoluments by fixing his pay in higher pay scale, and also pension may be revised and arrears thereon also may be paid. 3. The brief facts given rise to the present petition are as under: 3.1 The petitioner while working as Unarmed Police Head-Constable, on 16.07.1962, was served with a charge sheet and an inquiry was initiated against the petitioner. On 17.02.1964, the order of dismissal from service came to be passed against the petitioner. 3.2 Thereafter, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner against the order of dismissal. The said appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 30.11.1964. Thereafter, on 16.02.1965, the petitioner filed a Revision Application. The said Revision Application was also dismissed on 26.07.1965. 3.3 Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the petitioner has preferred Special Civil Application No. 1106 of 1965 before this Court. The learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the said petition. 3.4 Thereafter, being aggrieved by the said order, Letters Patent Appeal No. 42 of 1970 was preferred by the petitioner and the said Letters Patent Appeal was allowed by the judgment and order dated 29.01.1971 by reserving liberty to the respondents to go on with the inquiry from the stage at which the proceedings rested on 26.06.1963 before the Inquiry Officer. It was made clear that the order of holding inquiry was not set aside, but the order of dismissal was ordered to be set aside. Thereafter, the inquiry was resumed from the stage where it was rested on 06.05.1972. The Inquiry Officer has submitted its report on 04.04.1974, and thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority has passed an order of dismissal from service on 10.07.1974. Being aggrieved by the said order of dismissal, appeal was preferred by the petitioner which was dismissed vide order dated 24.07.1975. Thereafter, the petitioner has preferred Revision Application and the same was also dismissed vide order dated 10.06.1976. 3.5 Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 27 of Bombay Police Act before the Secretary of the Department on 24.07.1976, which was also dismissed by the Secretary on 11.11.1983. Thereafter, being aggrieved with the aforesaid decision, the petitioner has filed Special Civil Application No. 3959 of 1985. The said petition was allowed by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohit S. Shah, J.) by the judgment and order dated 20.08.1999. Since, the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court was not implemented, the petitioner has filed Misc. Civil Application No. 802 of 2002 on 25.06.2002, and the said application was dismissed on 19.12.2003 as statement was made by the respondents before the Court that some payments have been made. 3.6 Being aggrieved by the said decision, the respondent - authority preferred an Appeal being Letters Patent Appeal No. 1117 of 2002. The said Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed by the judgment and order dated 17.06.2003. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred the present petition for proper implementation of the directions given by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 3959 of 1985. 4. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that at the time of allowing the petition filed by the petitioner, being Special Civil Application No. 3959 of 1985, the impugned order of dismissal was set aside with following observations. "Since, the impugned order of dismissal is being set aside, not only on the ground of violation of Principles of Natural Justice but on the ground of entire initiation of the charges leveled against the petitioner was knocked down by the statement of the father of Bai Jadav." Thus, according to learned advocate for the petitioner, the petitioner was given clean cheat by the Hon'ble Court while setting aside the order of dismissal. The petitioner was also ordered to be paid back wages in the facts and circumstances of the case to the tune of 75% during the period between the date of dismissal i.e. dated 04.04.1974 till the date on which petitioner attained the age of superannuation. Learned advocate for the petitioner further submits that being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order of learned Single Judge, respondent-Government has preferred an Appeal being Letters Patent Appeal No. 1117 of 2002 before the Division Bench of this Court. The said Letters Patent Appeal came to be dismissed by order dated 17.06.2003. Learned advocate for the petitioner further submits that as far as the consequential reliefs are concerned, in view of the fact that other employees were granted seniority and promotions in the higher cadres long back, the Court does not deem it fit to disturb their promotions or seniority which would be the consequence, if the petitioner was to be granted benefits like promotion and seniority in the higher cadre. In the result, the petition is partly allowed. The impugned order of dismissal dated 10.07.1974 passed by the District Superintendent of Police, Kheda (Annexure-Z) which was confirmed by the order of Deputy Inspector General of Police dated 24.07.1975 and the order passed in revision dated 11.11.1983 passed by the State Government were ordered to be declared as illegal and were quashed and set aside. The respondents were directed to treat the petitioner as having continued in service as Head Constable without any break in service till the age of superannuation, but the Hon'ble Court observed in the order that the said consequential benefits shall be without any benefit of promotions to the higher cadre. 5. According to the learned advocate for the petitioner, the consequential benefit of promotion to the higher cadre was not given by the Court keeping in mind the observations which were made by the Court in the foregoing paragraph of the judgment. 5. According to the learned advocate for the petitioner, the consequential benefit of promotion to the higher cadre was not given by the Court keeping in mind the observations which were made by the Court in the foregoing paragraph of the judgment. As the Hon'ble Court was of the opinion that other employees have been granted seniority and promotions in the higher cadre long back, it would not be just and proper to disturb their promotions and seniority which would be the consequence, if the petitioner was to be granted benefits like promotion and seniority in the higher cadre and therefore, while disposing of writ petition filed by the petitioner, the Court has made clarifications to the effect that the consequential benefits are without any benefits of promotions to the higher cadre. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that thus, observations made by the Court in the order with respect to denial of promotions to the higher cadre does not amount to denial of higher grade/pay scale. 6. Learned advocate, Mr. Trivedi, appearing for the petitioner submits that as per Clause 3(5) of the Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994, if any employee has been under suspension on the date of eligibility or has been served with the charge sheet under Rule 9 or Rule 10 of the Discipline and Appeal Rules, such employee when exonerated in the departmental inquiry against him, and is reinstated in the service, his higher pay scale can be granted on the basis of eligibility. According to learned advocate for the petitioner, the petitioner was suspended on account of charges leveled against him in the year 1962 and since then he was kept out of duty. It is submitted that the petitioner has joined services to the respondents in the year 1952 and during the period of last 10 years before he was suspended in the year 1962, the service record of the petitioner is unblemished and meritorious. It is also submitted that the petitioner has been awarded certificates by the respondents for rendering excellent/outstanding service and it has been noted in his service book that the petitioner deserves promotion. According to the learned advocate for the petitioner, the service record of the petitioner up to 1962 was outstanding and meritorious, but, he was victimized as he was on the top of the list for promotion on account of his meritorious service record. According to the learned advocate for the petitioner, the service record of the petitioner up to 1962 was outstanding and meritorious, but, he was victimized as he was on the top of the list for promotion on account of his meritorious service record. But, it has been ruined by the Superior Officer, by initiating departmental inquiry. The departmental inquiry proceedings were initiated against the petitioner way back in the year 1962 and were concluded by the Disciplinary Authority by passing order of dismissal on 10.07.1974. Meaning, thereby, period of more than 12 years have been consumed by the respondents for conducting departmental inquiry against the petitioner. The petitioner was kept under suspension during the entire period. 7. Learned advocate for the petitioner further submits that though, time and again, General Administration Department of the Government issued circular to conclude departmental inquiry within the period of 4 to 6 months, in the cases, where employees/officers have been put under suspension but, in the instance case, in violation of said instructions issued by the Government, departmental inquiry was prolonged for the considerable long period of more than 12 years. It is submitted that the petitioner was not at all responsible for delay in departmental inquiry. In fact, the petitioner requested the respondent authority to revoke the suspension order and permit him to resume duty but the respondent authority did not accepted the reasonable request made by the petitioner. 8. According to the learned advocate for the petitioner, after quashing and setting aside the order of dismissal by this Court, the petitioner is eligible and entitled to get higher pay scale as the petitioner does not have an opportunity for getting promotion to the higher cadre. The purpose of providing higher pay scale/cadre is to see that the officer/employee working under the Government may not have feeling of stagnation in particular pay scale for want of chances of promotion. The petitioner has already suffered a lot during the period of suspension for considerable long period of departmental inquiry. The petitioner had to manage livelihood of his family out of limited funds/subsistence allowance received during the said period. The petitioner has already suffered a lot during the period of suspension for considerable long period of departmental inquiry. The petitioner had to manage livelihood of his family out of limited funds/subsistence allowance received during the said period. The Hon'ble Court while setting aside the order of dismissal, directed the respondents to treat the petitioner's service as continued service and extended all financial benefits except promotion to the higher cadre but, denial for promotion to higher cadre does not amount to denial to extend of benefit of higher grade in light of Government Policy contained in the Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994, more particularly, in view of sub clause 3(5) of the said resolution which clearly provides that higher grade pay scale can be granted in the cases where employees have been exonerated in departmental proceedings. In view of the order passed by this Hon'ble Court in writ petition filed by the petitioner, the order of dismissal has been set aside and thereby, the petitioner has been exonerated from the charges leveled against him and therefore, in view of clause 3(5) of Government Resolution, the petitioner is eligible and entitled to get financial benefits of higher pay scale/grade. 9. Learned advocate, Mr. Trivedi, appearing for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has been paid the back wages at the rate of 75% from 04.04.1974 till the date on which he had superannuated from the service. The petitioner is also getting pension as fixed by the respondents on the basis of last salary drawn by him and therefore, he is not pressing the prayer made in respect of consequential benefits already received by him in pursuant to directions issued by this Court but, it is prayed that respondents may be directed to pay the reasonable amount towards interest as deemed fit and proper by this Court on delayed payment. 10. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, Ms. Asmita Patel, appearing for the respondent-State, while opposing present petition, submits that the petitioner is eligible and entitled to get the difference of salary from 04.04.1974 till the date on which he had superannuated, in light of directions given by this Court at the time of allowing Special Civil Application No. 3959 of 1985. She has further submitted that the benefit of promotions to the higher cadre is denied by the Court and therefore, the petitioner is not eligible and entitled to get higher pay scale. She has further submitted that the benefit of promotions to the higher cadre is denied by the Court and therefore, the petitioner is not eligible and entitled to get higher pay scale. According to learned Assistant Government Pleader, the benefit of higher grade pay scale is attached with promotion meaning thereby, the person who is eligible and entitled to get promotion, on satisfying eligibility for promotion to the higher cadre can be given the benefits of higher pay scale so that he may not have feeling of stagnation. The condition precedent for grant of higher grade is that an employee should be eligible for the promotional post. It is further submitted that the higher grade scale is required to be granted in light of Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994. It is also submitted that for the purpose of giving higher grade, criteria prescribed in the Government resolution dated 16.08.1994, are required to be satisfied. 11. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further submits that the petitioner is not eligible and entitled to get interest on the delayed payment because the payments have been released during the pendency of the contempt proceedings in June 2002 and therefore, the respondents have not caused any intentional delay in releasing the payment. Letters Patent Appeal was filed by the respondent-Government for consideration and it was dismissed by order dated 17.06.2003 but after dismissal of the Letters Patent Appeal, remaining amount was also paid to the petitioner. Learned AGP also referred to and relied upon the averments made in Additional Affidavit in Reply filed by one Ms. Komal Vyas, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Head Quarter, Anand, on behalf of respondents wherein it is stated that respondents authorities have already paid the amount which was due and payable to the petitioner in light of the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 12. Regard being had to the above submissions and looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case, it appears that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1952 and was served with charge sheet in the year 1962. The inquiry was conducted against the petitioner and order of dismissal came to be passed on 17.02.1964. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred an appeal, and thereafter, revision before the State Government. But, the order of dismissal was maintained by all the authorities. The inquiry was conducted against the petitioner and order of dismissal came to be passed on 17.02.1964. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred an appeal, and thereafter, revision before the State Government. But, the order of dismissal was maintained by all the authorities. Therefore, the petitioner approached this Hon'ble Court by filing Special Civil Application No. 3959 of 1985. The said writ petition was allowed by the judgment and order dated 20.08.1999 and the impugned order of dismissal dated 10.07.1974 passed by the District Superintendent of Police, Kheda (Annexure-Z) which was confirmed by the order of Deputy Inspector General of Police dated 24.07.1975 as well as the order passed in revision dated 11.11.1983 were ordered to be quashed and set aside. The respondents were directed to treat the petitioner as continued in service as Head Constable without any break in service till the age of superannuation, without any promotion to higher cadre. The respondents were also directed to pay to the petitioner 75% arrears of the salary and allowances from the date of dismissal till the date of superannuation. While, issuance of aforesaid directions, this Court (Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohit S. Shah, J.) made following observations which are relevant for the purpose of deciding the present application. "12. The next question is what relief should be granted to the petitioner. Obviously, the order of dismissal will have to be quashed and set aside and it will have to be declared that the petitioner continued in service without any break till the normal date of superannuation. As far as the payment of back-wages is concerned, the time between the date of passing the order of dismissal in April, 1974 and the date of filing this petition in October, 1984 was consumed by the departmental remedies being one appeal and two revisions. Thereafter this petition has reached hearing after a period of almost 14 years, but in the meantime, the petitioner appears to have attained the age of 58 years, the age of superannuation during pendency of the petition. Thereafter this petition has reached hearing after a period of almost 14 years, but in the meantime, the petitioner appears to have attained the age of 58 years, the age of superannuation during pendency of the petition. There is some substance in the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner should be awarded full back wages right from the date of the dismissal till the date of reaching the age of superannuation, Since the impugned order of dismissal is being set aside not only on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice but on the ground of entire initiation of the charges leveled against the petitioner was knocked down by the statement of the father of Bai Jadav. At the same time, one cannot overlook the fact that during this intervening period, a person would normally try to secure some means of livelihood for maintaining his family. Therefore, deduction of 25%of the back wages, in the facts and circumstances of this case, would be a reasonable deduction on the above score. Hence, the petitioner deserves to be awarded 75% of the back wages during the period between the date of dismissal i.e. 4.4.1974 and the date on which he would have normally attained the age of superannuation. As far as the other consequential reliefs are concerned, in view of the fact that other employees were granted seniority and promotions in the higher cadres long back, the Court does not think it fit to disturb their promotions or seniority which would be the consequence, if the petitioner was to be granted benefits like promotion and seniority in the higher cadre. 13. In the result, the petition is partly allowed. The impugned order of dismissal dated 10.07.1974 passed by the district Superintendent of Police, Kheda (Annexure-Z) as confirmed by the order of Deputy Inspector General of Police dated 24.07.1975 (Annexure Z-G) and against the order in revision culminating in the order dated 11.11.1983 passed by the State Government (Annexure Z-I) are hereby declared as illegal and are quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to treat the petitioner as having continued in service as Head Constable without any break in service till the age of superannuation without any benefit of promotions to higher cadre. The respondents are directed to treat the petitioner as having continued in service as Head Constable without any break in service till the age of superannuation without any benefit of promotions to higher cadre. The respondents are further directed to pay the petitioner 75% of the arrears of salary and allowances from the date of dismissal till the date of superannuation." 13. In view of underlying observations made by this Court, it becomes clear that the order of dismissal is being set aside, not only on the ground of violation of Principles of Natural Justice but, on the ground of entire institution of charges leveled against the petitioner was knocked down by the father of Bai Jadav. Secondly, the benefit of promotion and seniority in the higher cadre was not given to the petitioner by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohit S. Shah, J.) in view of the fact that other employees were granted promotions and seniority to higher cadre long back, the Court did not deem it fit to disturb their promotions and seniority. Meaning thereby, the Court was of the opinion that the promotions and seniority which has been granted to other officers/employees should not be disturbed but, while making such observations, the Court has not given any negative findings/opinion that the petitioner is not eligible for getting higher grade/scale. This Court (Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohit S. Shah, J.) was concerned about the disturbance which is likely to be caused in respect of promotions and seniority to other employees, if, the petitioner was to be granted benefits of promotions and seniority in the higher cadre. The benefit of higher grade/scale is required to be considered in light of Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994. Therefore, the arguments advanced by the learned AGP with respect to denial of higher grade scale to the present petitioner by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohit S. Shah, J.) cannot be accepted for simple reason that the benefit of promotion to the higher cadre was denied to the petitioner and the discussions/findings recorded in the previous paragraph makes it very clear that the benefit of promotion to the higher cadre was denied to the petitioner as this Court was of the opinion that the promotions and seniority which have been granted to other employees should not be disturbed. But, nowhere it is stated in clear terms that petitioner should not be given benefit of higher grade pay/scale. On the contrary, respondent authority was directed to give consequential financial benefit to the petitioner. The higher grade is also one of the financial benefit emerges from Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994. Therefore, in absence of any adverse or negative findings recorded by the Court in this regard, this Court is of the view that the benefit of higher grade should also require to be given to the petitioner as per Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994, because by doing so, neither seniority nor promotion given to other officers are going to be disturbed. Moreover, dismissal order is set aside by the Court on merit, meaning thereby, petitioner was exonerated from the charges. Therefore, in view of clause 3(5) of Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994, the petitioner is eligible and entitle to get the benefit of higher grade. Since, this Court (Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohit S. Shah, J.) directed to pay back wages to the tune of 75% between the period of dismissal and retirement, the benefit of higher grade is also require to be given accordingly. 14. In view of the above discussion, the respondent-Government is hereby directed to give the benefit of higher grade/scale to the petitioner. The differential amount of salary be paid to the petitioner within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The differential unpaid amount of salary pursuant to Judgment delivered in Special Civil Application No. 3959 of 1985 dated 20.08.1999, be also paid within 6 weeks, if not paid so far.