By the Court.—Heard Sri Ram Gopal Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Amit Saxena, learned counsel for respondent and also perused the record.

2. This is an intra Court appeal is directed against the order dated 13.5.2016 passed on the Review Application No. 80195 of 2016 in Writ Petition No. 12264 of 2015, Irfan Ahmad v. U.P. Co-Operative Federation Ltd. and 3 others. It is necessary to set out the fact leading to this appeal in short.

3. Irfan Ahmad, writ petitioner was appointed as Assistant in the office of Manager U.P. Co-operative Federation Ltd. on 30.3.1973. Departmental proceedings were initiated against Irfan Ahmad in the matter of loss of goods. He was placed under suspension vide order dated 23.12.2000.The disciplinary proceedings resulted in passing of order by the District Manager, directing recovery of loss of the goods to the extent of 50% from the petitioner i.e Rs. 3,11,333/-. Petitioner Irfan Ahmad filed Writ Petition No. 20540 of 2003, which was allowed on 5.2.2003. It is worthwhile to reproduce the following paragraph of the judgement dated 5.4.2012 which is is quoted as under :

“The Supreme Court has held that in such a situation when principles of natural justice are violated, reinstatement should not be ordered and nor any direction for payment of arrears of salary should be given and the termination order will remain, but shall be subject to the fresh consideration after compliance of the principles of natural justice.

Thus, when the principles of natural justice have been violated in the instant case, it will not be appropriate to issue direction for reinstatement of the petitioner. The respondents shall proceed with the enquiry from the stage the petitioner submitted a reply to the charge-sheet and conclude it expeditiously and the impugned order dated 6.2.2003 passed by the Managing Director of the UPCF shall be subject to the result of the fresh consideration.

The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.”

4. The order passed by the learned Single Judge had admittedly become final between the parties. The departmental proceedings in terms of the direction so issued by the writ Court were again initiated by the concerned authority, culminating in the order of the Managing Director dated 3.8.2013 by which the petitioner was dismissed from service. A finding was recorded that since the petitioner has already retired on 28.8.2011, the question of his dismissal from service does not arise any monetary loss of Rs. 1,91,129.80/- to be recovered from the retiral dues payable to the petitioner.

5. This order of the Managing Director was subjected to challenge by means of Writ Petition No. 12264 of 2015. In the writ petition three reliefs had been prayed for:

(a) to quash the order of recovery dated 3.8.2013.

(b) to make payment of entire arrears of salary from the date of suspension till the age of superannuation on 20.8.2011.

(c) mandamus commanding the respondent to pay the entire retiral benefit.

6. The petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 26.2.2015. The order dated 3.8.2014 was set aside. A direction was issued to pay the retirial benefit to the petitioner within six weeks. There was no order in the matter of payment of arrears of salary from the date of suspension till the date of superannuation.

7. The employer, not being satisfied with the order of learned Single Judge, filed Special Appeal (Defective) No. 471 of 2015 (U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd and 3 others v. Irfan Ahmad) which was dismissed vide order dated 21.7.2015.

8. Irfan Ahmad for non-payment of entire arrears of salary for the period indicated above, filed modification application before the learned Single Judge was dismissed vide order dated 20.11.2015 on the ground that since the order of learned Single Judge for which the modification was being prayed for stands affirmed with the dismissal of Special Appeal No. 471 of 2015. It would not be appropriate for the leaned