M.C.GARG, J. - (1.)THIS writ appeal has been filed on behalf of the State of Madhya Pradesh aggrieved of the order dated 12.04.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.8664/2011 (S) whereby directions have been given to the State of Madhya Pradesh to make payment of sum of Rs.2,37,176/ to the respondent alongwith interest @ 8% p.a.within two months from the date of passing of the order.
(2.)LEARNED counsel for the appellant submits that the aforesaid amount is not payable to the respondent inasmuch as the said amount which has not been paid is the difference of the interest awarded to the respondent on the Provident Fund recoveries which were made after 1998 till 2006 for which period the respondent remained in service, but on account of the judgment delivered by this Court dated 07th July, 2009, the respondent was only entitled to retiral benefits treating the respondent having retired on 2nd March, 1998 for which period the respondent remained in service; on account of various interim orders, the respondent was only entitled to salary.
The relevant observation made by the learned Division Bench of this Court in this regard is reproduced hereunder:

"In the light of foregoing discussion, the petition is dismissed so far as its challenge to the impugned order dated 02.03.98 of compulsory retirement and order dated 07.12.98 passed in O.A.No.356/98 is concerned. As a consequence, the petitioner will be deemed to have retired from his service on 02.03.98 i.e. the date on which the order of compulsorily retirement was passed. The respondent would therefore, finalise the case of petitioner for fixing his pension and all retiral benefits as if petitioner retired on 02.03.1998. So far as recovery of any salary, if paid to petitioner from 02.03.98 onwards is concerned, the same would not be recoverable provided it is proved that petitioner has actually worked and rendered his services to State in his official capacity as B.D.O. This issue may be examined by State with reference to record of petitioner and accordingly necessary order be passed, if necessary."

(3.)IT is not in dispute that the order passed by the Division Bench on the point of date of retirement has not been upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court. The respondent has filed an OA before the State Administrative Tribunal claiming that the entire amount should have been paid to the respondent, but he was not successful and therefore a fresh writ petition was filed before this Court.