JUDGMENT : 1. This civil writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs : “1. The impugned order dated 08.10.2018 (Annex.11) passed by the learned District Judge, Jodhpur, may kindly be quashed and set aside and the application filed by the petitioner dated 17.07.2018 (Ann.9) may kindly be allowed as prayed for. 2. Any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. 3. Cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner.” 2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner, are that the petitioner was initially appointed as work charged employee on 07.10.1979 on the post of Surveyor and after completion of two years of service, when his services not were declared semi permanent, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute through the Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board Karamchari Sangh, Udaipur, for the said purpose. 2.1 Upon failure of the conciliation proceedings, reference was made by the appropriate Government to the learned Industrial Disputes Tribunal, Udaipur, who vide its judgment and award dated 04.01.1994 allowed the petitioner’s claim, while holding him entitled to be declared as semi-permanent on the post of Surveyor from 07.10.1981, and also issued direction to grant the petitioner pay scale of Rs.385-650 from 07.04.1980, and benefit of the revised pay scale from time to time; whereafter, the petitioner filed an application before the learned District Judge, Udaipur for execution of the judgment and award of the learned Tribunal, which was allowed vide order dated 19.11.2018. 2.2 However, being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 04.01.1994 of the learned Tribunal, the respondents preferred a writ petition bearing SBCWP No.3544/1995 before this Hon’ble Court, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 24.11.2009, while affirming the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal. 2.3. 2.2 However, being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 04.01.1994 of the learned Tribunal, the respondents preferred a writ petition bearing SBCWP No.3544/1995 before this Hon’ble Court, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 24.11.2009, while affirming the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal. 2.3. The respondents also preferred a writ petition bearing SBCWP No.4544/1998 before this Hon’ble Court against order passed by the learned Executing Court on the application filed by the petitioner seeking execution of the award of the learned Tribunal, which too came to be dismissed by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 09.11.2013; against which the respondents preferred an appeal bearing DBSAW No.810/2014, which was also dismissed by a Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 17.08.2015 for non-prosecution and on the ground of non-removal of the defects; restoration application filed there against was however, allowed; but subsequently the appeal filed by the respondents was dismissed on merits vide order dated 01.06.2016. 2.4 In the meanwhile, a writ petition bearing SBCWP No.4883/2016 was also preferred by the respondents aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Executing Court and the proceedings of execution in terms of the award passed by the learned Tribunal, but the same was also dismissed vide order dated 03.05.2016. 2.5 Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an application before the learned Executing Court on 17.07.2018, alleging that he has not been paid the entire benefits, i.e. benefit of revised pay scale, retiral benefits etc. On behalf of the respondents also, an application was filed on 12.09.2018 stating therein that the entire benefits had been paid to the petitioner. 2.5.1 The learned District Judge, Udaipur thereafter, heard the arguments on the applications filed by the petitioner as well as the respondents, and vide the impugned order dated 08.10.2018, proceeded to reject the application filed by the petitioner, while the application of the respondents was allowed, holding that the entire due amount, as was payable under the law, has been paid to the petitioner. Hence, against the said order, the present petition has been preferred. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned court below failed to consider that the claimed amount as per award dated 04.01.1994 was not paid to the petitioner; the petitioner was entitled to get pay scale of Rs.385-650 of the post of Surveyor. 4. Hence, against the said order, the present petition has been preferred. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned court below failed to consider that the claimed amount as per award dated 04.01.1994 was not paid to the petitioner; the petitioner was entitled to get pay scale of Rs.385-650 of the post of Surveyor. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the retiral benefits, pension and other benefits including last pay was not being calculated for the post of Surveyor; therefore, the learned court below has committed a serious error of law while rejecting the application of the petitioner, vide the impugned order dated 08.10.2018. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that the learned court below has rightly passed the impugned order, after taking into due consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, and the material placed on record. He further submitted that in compliance award of the learned Tribunal, the entire amount of Rs.18,28,802/- was already paid to the petitioner, and therefore, no amount is due to be paid to the petitioner, by the respondents. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case. 7. This Court finds that in the compliance of judgment and award dated 04.01.1994 passed by the learned Tribunal, the respondents have paid the entire due amount and benefits to the petitioner. Therefore, an application for the closure/dropping of the proceedings filed by the respondent, was rightly allowed by the learned court below vide the impugned order dated 08.10.2018. 8. This Court is thus of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the learned court below, is a well reasoned and speaking order, and the same does not call for any interference by this Court. 9. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.