By the Court.—We have heard Shri Vipin Kumar Saxena, learned counsel for the appellant. Learned Standing Counsel appears for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Shri Madhur Prakash appears for respondent Nos. 4 and 5.

2. Shri Shripati Tripathi, the petitioner-appellant died during the pendency of the writ petition. He has been substituted with his heirs and legal representatives vide order dated 16.3.2010 on an application. The substitution has been carried out in the array of parties on 18.3.2010.

3. The appellants are aggrieved by the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 8.3.2006 in Writ Petition No. 31355 of 2004 by which the writ petition claiming interest on the arrears of salary from 6.1.1978 to 31.12.1992, and other retrial benefits was dismissed.

4. Learned Single Judge observed, that the petitioner serving as Cashier in Nagar Palika, Basti, was placed under suspension on 6.1.1978, on the charges of embezzlement of a part of the salary of the employees, to be deposited in recurring deposit scheme. The Writ Petition No. 23306 of 1989 filed by him was disposed of vide order dated 7.1.1993 directing the department to complete the departmental enquiry, and in case of failure, he was to be reinstated. The enquiry was concluded in the year 1998, after a period of 11 years, on the directions issued by the Court. Learned Judge found that when the matter was taken up on 21.12.2005, a detailed order was passed asking the officers to be present in Court. They appeared on various dates and handed over the demand drafts totalling the arrears of pay and pension to the petitioner. A supplementary affidavit was filed stating that remaining outstanding of Rs. 1,30,709.90 was also paid through bankers cheque. He found that since the amount has been paid, the Court should refrain from passing any order for payment of interest. If the petitioner feels aggrieved, he may approach the appropriate forum, for award of interest.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in State of Kerala and others v. M. Padmanabhan Nair, AIR 1985 SC 356; O.P. Gupta v. Union of India and others, 1987 UPLBEC 583 (SC); R. Kapur v. Director of Inspection (Painting and Publication) Income Tax and another, (1995) 1 UPLBEC 89; S.R. Bhanrale v. Union of India and others, AIR 1997 SC 27; Dr. Uma Agrawal v. State of U.P. and another, (1999) 2 UPLBEC 1006 (SC); S.K. Dua v. State of Haryana and another, (2008) 1 UPLBEC 301 and the judgments of Punjab and Haryana High Court in A.S. Randhawa v. State of Punjab and others, 1998 (1) ESC 735 (P&H); the Division Bench judgment of this Court, Smt. Kavita Kumar v. State of U.P. and others, 2008(7) ADJ 574 (DB) : 2008(4) ESC 2544 (All)(DB), in support of the submission that the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has ample powers to be exercised in appropriate and deserving cases to award interest, is cases of inordinate delay, attributable wholly to the employer in settling the retrial dues.

6. In order to appreciate the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner- appellant, it will be appropriate to refer to the facts of the case.

7. The petitioner was serving as Cashier in Nagar Palika, Basti and was due to retire on 31.12.1992. In the year 1977 a first information report was lodged against the petitioner, Executive Engineer Girija Shankar Singh and Accountant Shri Vishwa Nath Prasad Srivastava for misappropriating a part the amount of the salary of the employee to be deposited in recurring deposit scheme. The police submitted a charge-sheet under Section 409 IPC resulting in registration of Criminal Case No. 1699 of 1990 against him. He was placed under suspension on 6.1.1978. It is admitted that no disciplinary enquiry was initiated against the petitioner and no charge-sheet was served upon him for more than 11 years on which he filed Writ Petition No. 23306 of 1989, Shripati Tripathi and another v. State of U.P., in which the Court by its judgme