JUDGMENT : Manish Mathur, J. Heard Sri Rahul Roshan Dubey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party nos. 1 to 3, none appeared on behalf of the opposite party no.4. This petition is being decided finally despite the fact that counter-affidavit has not been filed by the opposite parties, although time had been granted to the opposite parties for filing the same. The petitioner is aged about 74 years and in view of the subsequent facts as narrated hereunder, I do not deem it appropriate to grant any further time for filing counter-affidavit since no disputed question of fact is involved and the petition can be decided on the basis of admitted documents already on record. 2. By means of the present petition, the petitioner has sought a direction in the mandamus directing the opposite parties to provide promotional pay scale of Rs. 2000-3200 (as revised from time to time) w.e.f. 01.03.1995 with consequential benefits including arrears and allowances to the petitioner. 3. The dispute pertains to the grant of promotional scale to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.03.1995 which was denied to him. The petitioner initially had been appointed as a clerk in the Directorate of Agriculture on 20.06.1964 and thereafter, after regular selection was appointed on the post of Assistant Accountant w.e.f. 31st March, 1973. Subsequently, the petitioner's services along with others in the department were transfered to District Sultanpur in the Project Sharda Sahayak Command Area under the opposite party no.4, who by means of order dated 13 October, 1980 promoted the petitioner on ad-hoc basis to the post of Accountant in the pay scale of Rs. 350-700. On the completion of the aforesaid project, the petitioner rejoined in the Agriculture Directorate as Accountant on 01.11.1988 and was subsequently confirmed on the post of Accountant on 10.01.1995. However, as per the averments since on completion of 14 years continuous service, once he became entitled for promotional pay scale of Rs. 2000-3200 w.e.f. 01.03.1995 as per Government order dated 05.02.1997, he was not granted the aforesaid promotional scale due to which the petitioner filed claim petition no. 1081 of 2005 before in the State Public Services Tribunal at Lucknow. 2000-3200 w.e.f. 01.03.1995 as per Government order dated 05.02.1997, he was not granted the aforesaid promotional scale due to which the petitioner filed claim petition no. 1081 of 2005 before in the State Public Services Tribunal at Lucknow. The said claim petition was allowed by means of judgment and order dated 22nd December, 2011 whereby the order of rejection dated 10.06.2005 was quashed and the opposite parties were directed to reconsider the petitioner's case for grant of promotional scale of pay of Rs. 2000-3200 (as revised from time to time) w.e.f. 01.03.1995 with payment of all admissible consequential benefits including arrears of allowances and accordingly revised pension and other retiral benefits. It was further directed that the compliance of the order was to be made by the opposite party within three months from the date of certified copy was provided to them. 4. The aforesaid judgment and order dated 22nd December, 2011 was challenged by the State of U.P. in Writ Petition No. 23682 (S/B) of 2016, which was also dismissed by means of judgment and order dated 29th September, 2016 wherein it was specifically held that the petitioners services under Sharda Sahayak Command Pariyojna would be considered for the purpose of his promotion, since he was transferred to the aforesaid unit and was not on deputation and further as accountant for the purpose of service benefits. 5. After the dismissal of the aforesaid writ petition, when the directions of the State Tribunal were not complied with, petitioner filed contempt petition no. 72 of 2012 before State Public Services Tribunal which was, however, dismissed by means of order dated 22nd May, 2018 in which the Tribunal while noting the judgment and order dated 22nd December, 2011 found sufficient compliance by the opposite parties, although the benefit of promotional scale was denied to the petitioner w.e.f. 03.09.2001 and was granted only from 1st March, 2000/1st April, 2001. The learned Tribunal had apparently dismissed the contempt petition in view of the order dated 29th May, 2017 passed by the Director Agriculture, Uttar Pradesh where under the promotional scale was denied to the petitioner w.e.f. 1st March, 1995. 6. The learned Tribunal had apparently dismissed the contempt petition in view of the order dated 29th May, 2017 passed by the Director Agriculture, Uttar Pradesh where under the promotional scale was denied to the petitioner w.e.f. 1st March, 1995. 6. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed in which by means of order dated 28th June, 2018 the opposite parties have been granted time to file counter-affidavit specifically explaining as to why the claim adjudicated upon by the Tribunal by means of judgment and order dated 22nd, December 2011 and affirmed by this Court was complied with in a manner contrary to the order passed by the Tribunal particularly when the Finance Controller by means of letter dated 05.06.2018 found the eligibility of the petitioner for promotional scale to be admissible w.e.f. 1st March, 1995. 7. Despite the aforesaid time granted to the opposite party no counter-affidavit has been filed till date. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the claim of the petitioner was allowed by the tribunal by means of judgment and order dated 22nd December, 2011, specifically admitting the petitioner's case for grant of promotional scale w.e.f. 1st March, 1985 with all admissible consequential benefits, then it was not open to the opposite parties to have passed subsequent order on 29th May, 2017 rejecting the same particularly when the judgment of the learned tribunal was upheld by this Court. In this view of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petition deserves to be allowed. 9. The learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties nos. 1 to 3 has sought to defend the order dated 29th May, 2017 on the ground that the petitioner was entitled for the promotional pay scale only w.e.f. 1st March, 2000 and not prior to that in terms of paragraph 2 of the government order dated 3rd September, 2001, and therefore, there was no occasion to grant promotional pay scale to the petitioner prior to the aforesaid date. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. A perusal of the judgment and order dated 22nd December, 2011 passed by the State Services Tribunal clearly indicates that the main dispute agitated before it was the grant of promotional pay scale to the petitioner w.e.f. 1st March, 1995 in terms of the government order dated 5 February, 1997. It is also evident that the ground for rejection of the petitioner's claim for promotional pay scale w.e.f. 1st March, 1995 was that the petitioner would not be eligible for the said scale until his promotion on regular basis on the post of accountant and therefore, in terms of paragraph 2 of the government order dated 3rd September, 2001 and the government order dated 11th November, 2005 on completion of 24 years of service, he could be granted promotional scale only w.e.f. 1st March, 2000. The Tribunal while giving detailed judgment has categorically held in favour of the petitioner particularly with regard to paragraph 2 of Government order dated 3rd September, 2001 and has thereafter directed the opposite parties to reconsider the petitioner's case for grant of promotional scale w.e.f. 1st March, 1995. 11. Once the said judgment and order dated 22nd December, 2011 was challenged by the State Government before this Court in writ petition which was dismissed on 29th September, 2016 upholding the contention of the petitioner, I am therefore of the view that since the specific directions of the State Public Services Tribunal were upheld by this Court by means of the judgment and order dated 29th September, 2016, then it was inappropriate, illegal and beyond jurisdiction of the opposite parties to have denied the claim of the petitioner for grant of promotional pay scale w.e.f. 1st March, 1995.???? 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafique Bibi Vs. Sayed Waliuddin reported in, (2004) 1 SCC 287 , has clearly held that an order or decree passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction cannot be denuded of its efficacy by any collateral attack or any incidental proceedings. The said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court would be clearly applicable in the present case since the order dated 29th May, 2017 seeks to denude the directions of not only the Tribunal but also of this Court.?? 13. The said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court would be clearly applicable in the present case since the order dated 29th May, 2017 seeks to denude the directions of not only the Tribunal but also of this Court.?? 13. It is relevant to indicate that after the aforesaid judgments, the claim of the petitioner has been rejected by means of the order dated 29th May, 2017 which has been brought on record by means of the supplementary affidavit. Although the aforesaid order dated 29th May, 2017 has not been challenged in the present writ petition but I am of the view that the non challenge of the aforesaid order would have no material bearing on the outcome of the writ petition in as much as the ground for rejection of the petitioner's claim again is based on paragraph 2 of the government order dated 3rd September, 2001 which has already been negatived by the State Public Services Tribunal and by this Court in respective judgments and therefore in view of the aforesaid sequence the order dated 29th May, 2017 is a nullity. 14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shishankar Gurgar Vs. Dilip reported in, (2014) 2 SCC 465 has held that principles of acquiescence estoppel or waiver would not apply in cases of orders which are null and void. Although the aforesaid judgment pertained to legal proceedings but I am of the view, that the aforesaid principles would also be applicable in case of administrative orders which have been passed completely contrary to the judgments and decrees passed by courts of competent jurisdiction as in the present case. Since the order dated 29th May, 2017 has been passed on the grounds which have already been negatived by the State Public Services Tribunal and this Court, therefore the non challenge of the said order would have no material bearing. 15. It is my view that once the claim of the petitioner had been comprehensively allowed by the Tribunal and upheld by this Court, the opposite parties had no option but to comply with the direction issued by the Tribunal in its judgment and order 22nd December, 2011 and therefore, there was no occasion for opposite parties to have passed the order dated 29th May, 2017 denying the benefits to the petitioner. 16. 16. In view of the aforesaid, the opposite party nos.1 to 3 are directed to reconsider the petitioner's case for grant promotional scale of pay of Rs. 2000-3200 (as revised from time to time) w.e.f. 1st March, 1995 along with all admissible consequential benefits including arrears of allowances and the revised pension and post retiral benefits. It is directed that the opposite parties shall comply with the order within a period of three months from the date of certified copy of this order is produced before them. 17. In terms of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed.