ORDER : M.M. Punchhi, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The appellant obtained orders in his favour from the U.P. Public Services Tribunal IV, Lucknow, on two occasions whereby the respondent-State of U.P. was required to reinstate the appellant, as a consequence of the order of his termination of services being quashed. Since the order was not obeyed, the appellant obtained the requisite certificate from the Tribunal to have the orders of reinstatement executed before a competent civil court. When those execution proceedings were about to culminate, the State of U.P. filed a writ petition in the High Court. It was delayed by about 11/2 years. The appellant took objection to the laches involved. The High Court sustained the objection of the appellant holding that the delay had not been satisfactorily explained. On that ground alone, the writ petition was dismissed. Having done so, the High Court in the concluding paragraph of the judgment abruptly passed the following order: "However, in the circumstances of the case, Respondent 1 will be allowed ¼th of the back wages only, but for the purpose of seniority and determination of pension, he would be deemed to be in continuous service. Writ petition is dismissed accordingly." 3. Surprisingly, the High Court did not substantiate the above direction with any justificatory facts or by its own deliberations. It is the latter part of the judgment which is under challenge before us. 4. We have straightaway put the respondents' counsel to explain how he can support the said order. As is natural, it is an uphill task for him. Amusingly, the appellant who was the respondent before the High Court after the dismissal of the writ petition, became worse off than before. The High Court could not have in this manner snatched from the appellant the benefit of service and back wages sequelly following the orders of the Services Tribunal, unless it had condoned the delay and entertained the writ petition on merit. It appears that the questioned direction was made by the High Court hastily without appreciating its fallout. The same is hence unsustainable. 5. With these observations, we allow the appeal and delete the afore direction from the impugned judgment and order of the High Court, otherwise sustaining the order to the rest of it, with costs. Appeal allowed.