Rakesh Tiwari, J.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2. The controversy involved in this writ petition is decided by the Division Bench judgment dated 23.2.2006 in Special Appeal No. 151 of 2006, Managing Director, U. P. State Handloom Corporation Ltd. v. Dinesh Maurya and others, wherein it has been held that the direction for payment of 6% penal interest was not necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case and no error has been committed by the learned single Judge in directing the Corporation to make the payment with compound interest at the rate of 10%. The order is reproduced as under:

Heard learned Counsel for the Appellant and the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents.

This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 16.1.2006 passed by a learned single Judge disposing of the writ petition directing the corporation to make payment of entire arrears to the writ Petitioners with 10% compound interest and 6% penal interest.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Corporation is suffering under the great financial stress and the amount, which is received by the State Government for disbursement of V.R.S. am