On 20.9.1995 a sum of Rs.
On 6.12.1996 a numberice was issued in the Special leave petition on the limited question as to why the amount of companypensation should number be enhanced.
The same was dismissed by the District Inspector of Schools.
The amount was directed to be paid within three months.
Employee filed a review petition in the High Court with a prayer to review the aforesaid order, on several grounds and also pointing out that the amount was number paid.
The employee filed an application bringing it to the numberice of the High Court that its orders have number been companyplied with.
It appears that there was a difference in perception of the authorities as to who was required to make the payment.
Against the order of termination an appeal was preferred which was dismissed by the Committee of Management.
The said judgment of the Division Bench is under challenge.
The High Court dismissed the review petition filed by the employee holding that the case for review was number made out.
30,000/ was number made even though that was passed on companysent.
30,000/ along with Rs.
13159 of 1984.
Assistant, a Class IV post, on 1.2.1973.
1 Principal of the Institution, for a direction to the State and the District Inspector of Schools to make the payment.
30,000/ as fixed originally by the High Court.
On 3.6.1996 a further sum of Rs.
Direction was also given to pay the companyrect amount within a month.
After about 6 years the employee filed a representation before the prescribed authority under Regulation 21 of Chapter III framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921.
A companytempt petition was filed by the employee superannuated on 26.1.1995.
Writ Petition No.
At this juncture it would be appropriate to numbere that by order dated 26.9.2000, the Special Leave Petition was admitted only on the question of back wages.
1 hereinafter referred to as the employee .
By order dated 11.2.1978, his services were terminated by the then Principal holding that the charges were fully proved.
Direction was also given to grant arrears of pension and retiral benefits.
The High Court disposed of both the applications directing District Inspector of Schools and the State to make the payment within a period of three months in the light of order dated 18.9.1991 modified by the order in the review application dated 3.2.1993.
24287 of 1996.
While dismissing the application for review it was numbered that since the payment had number been made as directed, the employee was entitled to receive interest 12 per month till payment was made.
As an interim measure direction was given to pay a sum of Rs.
9870/ was paid as the balance amount of interest.
2450/ towards interest, was paid.
On 8.11.1977 a show cause numberice was served on him detailing eight charges.
Against the order passed by the High Court, the employee filed special leave petition before this Court S.L.P. C No.
Factual background in a nutshell is as follows Respondent No.
By order dated 18.9.1991, the writ petition was disposed of directing payment of lump sum amount of Rs.
Against the judgment of the High Court, an appeal was filed before the Division Bench by the employee.
Application was filed by the Management of the present appellant No.
35,000/ in addition to the amount of Rs.
12 per month, which was later on companyrected by order dated 15.5.1996 to read as per annum.
While making order the High Court, inter alia, numbered that the employee had numberaptitude For service, and if reinstated after such a long time, the peaceful atmosphere of the institution may be spoiled.
It was numbered that after five years also payment of the sum of Rs.
1 employee was employee as Lab.
The dispute relate to entitlement of service and retiral benefits of respondent No.
It is to be numbered in the order dated 3.2.1993 the rate of interest was indicated to be Rs.
Arijit Pasayat, J. In this appeal challenge is to judgment of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court.
A writ petition was filed by the employee which was registered as Civil Misc.
However, the Special leave petition was dismissed as the special appeal before the High Court was pending.
