(1) SPECIAL leave granted. (2) THE respondent was dismissed from service after an inquiry had been held. On the statutory appeal filed by him, the order of dismissal was set aside. The appellant herein then filed a writ petition, but the same was dismissed by a Single Judge of the High Court. While disposing of the writ petition, in the order dated 6-12-1983 it was mentioned that interest at the rate of 12% p.m. would be paid on the arrears which were due to the respondent. An application for review was filed and it was, inter alia, contended that instead of the letters "p.m.", the letters should have been "p.a.", that is to say, the interest which was awarded was 12% per annum and not 144% per annum. (3) BY order dated 7-7-1999, this application for review was dismissed. By an earlier order dated 23-4-1999, the letters patent appeal against the main order of the Single Judge was dismissed. (4) IT clearly appears to us that there was a mistake when in the order dated 6-12-1983 passed by the Single Judge on an application for stay it was mentioned that the interest which would be paid would be "12% p.m." Payment of interest at the rate of 12% per month which would be an interest at the rate of 144% per annum can never be visualised. To award such a high rate of interest would clearly be uncalled for. It is quite evident that this was a typographical error and instead of the letters "p.a.", the letters "p.m." were typed in the order of the Single Judge. (5) AS far as the merits of the case are concerned, we see no reason to interfere with the decision of the High Court. The appeals are allowed only to the limited extent, namely, that the rate of interest which would be payable on the amounts due to the respondent would be 12% per annum and not 12% per month. (6) PARTIES to bear their own costs.