JUDGMENT The facts as emerge are that the petitioner was an employee of the respondent. His services were terminated. Against the order of removal, the petitioner had preferred a Departmental Appeal as permissible under the rules. That appeal continued to hibernate for some time. As a result of this, the petitioner had approached this Court in writ petition. At that stage, this Court had directed the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal within a period of three months. Pursuant to that direction, the Appellate Authority decided the appeal and this order went in favour of the petitioner. The copy of the order passed by the Appellate Authority is filed with this petition as Annexure P/3. By this order, the order of termination was set aside. The petitioner was directed to be reinstated in service with consequential benefits on back wages from 12.7.89. The petitioner has now retired from service. His back wages are still not paid. Against this inaction the petitioner has again approached this Court. I am of the view that this petition can be disposed of right at this stage with appropriate directions against the respondent. In the result, I find that the respondent can be directed to look into this matter with reference to the order of the Appellate Authority (Annexure P/3). In case there is no hurdle, the respondent shall comply with the order Annexure P/3 within a period of three months from today. In case the respondent finds that the petitioner for some reason is not entitled to receive the benefit as documented in Annexure P 13, it shall hear the petitioner and pass appropriate and speaking order in that behalf. This petition thus, stands finally disposed of in terms indicated above.