JUDGMENT : A.S. Supehia, J. 1. At the outset, learned Advocate Mr. Akshat Khare for the petitioner has submitted that by the interim order dated 5-9-2008, this Court had directed the respondent-authorities to reinstate the petitioner and also give continue salary as well as the revision of pay on or before 10th September, 2008. He has submitted that pursuant to the order, the petitioner is reinstated in service and is also paid revised pay-scale. He has submitted that the aforesaid order has further not been challenged and accepted by the respondent-authorities, and hence, nothing would survive in the matter. 2. The captioned Special Civil Application No. 8660 of 2007 is filed by the petitioner for the implementation of the order dated 6-6-2006 passed by the Court of Commissioner (Disabled Persons) under the provision of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for short "the Disability Act"). By the order dated 6-6-2006, the learned Commissioner after examining the matter threadbare had declared the action of the respondent No. 2 of terminating the petitioner from service as illegal and void. The learned Commissioner had directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner and it was further declared that the termination was in violation of the Disability Act, more particularly Sec. 47. It was further directed that the petitioner shall be reinstated with continuity of service with original salary. The entire service was also further directed to be treated for the purpose of pensionary benefits. 3. By the interim order dated 5-9-2008 this Court had directed to implement the aforesaid order pursuant to which the petitioner was reinstated in service. However, by filing the captioned Special Civil Application No. 30216 of 2007, the respondents herein have challenged the order of the learned Commissioner. The matter was admitted on 17-9-2008, however, the impugned order of the authority was not stayed. 4. This Court has perused the order passed by the Court of Commissioner. The respondents are taking shelter on the decision dated 24-2-2006 passed by the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal in Appeal No. 382 of 2003 against the petitioner challenging the termination. The Tribunal had rejected the appeal of the petitioner on the ground that he was unable to produce any certificate about his illness. 5. The respondents are taking shelter on the decision dated 24-2-2006 passed by the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal in Appeal No. 382 of 2003 against the petitioner challenging the termination. The Tribunal had rejected the appeal of the petitioner on the ground that he was unable to produce any certificate about his illness. 5. It is the case of the respondents i.e. petitioners of the Special Civil Application No. 30216 of 2007 that since the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal has rejected the appeal of the petitioner, the order passed by the learned Commissioner will not bind them. 6. In the considered opinion of this Court, the stand taken by the District Development Officer is misconceived, since the petitioner was terminated because of his disability and vide order dated 10-4-1995, the learned Commissioner, who is a statutory authority under the Act had set aside the termination of the petitioner, which was binding on the respondents. When the petitioner approached the respondent-authorities to implement the order dated 6-6-2006 passed by the learned Commissioner under the Disability Act, by the impugned letter dated 28-9-2006, the respondent-District Development Officer did not implement the said order by observing that the provisions of Disability Act-would not apply in the case of the petitioner. Thus, despite the order passed by the Court of Commissioner which is a deemed Civil Court under the provisions of Disability Act, the District Development Officer blatantly refused to implement the same. Such approach of the District Development Officer is contemptuous and uncalled for. The District Development Officer cannot refuse to comply with the order passed by the Court of Commissioner which is a deemed Civil Court under the provision of the Disability Act. The order of the Commissioner will prevail over the order passed by the Tribunal, as he is exercising the powers under Sec. 63 of the Disabilities Act, 1995 which is a special statute enacted for the protection of rights of disabled persons. 7. Since, the interim order passed by this Court dated 5-9-2008 in Special Civil Application No. 8660 of 2007 was not further challenged and pursuant to the said order, the petitioner was reinstated in service with continuity as well as requisite benefits, the captioned Special Civil Application No. 30216 of 2007 filed by the District Development Officer challenging the order of the Court of Commissioner under the Disability Act is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged. 8. Rule is discharged. 8. The interim order dated 5-9-2008 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 8660 of 2007 is hereby made final. Accordingly, the Special Civil Application No. 8660 of 2007 stands allowed. Rule is made absolute.