(1) SPECIAL leave granted. (2) RESPONDENT 3 was an employee of Respondent 1. The services of Respondent 3 had been terminated. Subsequently, by orders of the Tribunal Respondent 3 was reinstated in service. (3) WHEN the case came up before the High Court in revision petition having been filed by Respondent 1, the order of the Tribunal was upheld. Thereafter, the High Court entertained a submission on behalf of Respondent 1 to the effect that the institution in question was covered under the Grants-in-Aid Code and, therefore, the back wages and other benefits which were payable to Respondent 3 herein will have to be paid by the Government and to that extent a direction may be issued. Accepting this contention, the High Court directed the Government, the appellant herein, to make the payment. (4) IN our opinion, the appellant is right in contending that the question of the liability of the Government to pay the back wages and other benefits was not in issue either before the Tribunal or before the High Court and, therefore, the High Court could not have passed such a direction. It is not denied that no such relief was claimed by Respondent 3 before the Tribunal nor was such a contention raised by Respondent 1 before the said Tribunal. The order of reinstatement passed by the Tribunal would entitle Respondent 3 to get all the benefits from Respondent 1. Thereafter, it will be a matter between Respondent 1 and the authority which may be responsible for giving the grant-in-aid, but the High Court in any case could not have presumed that Respondent 1 would be entitled to get reimbursement from the Government and on that basis directed the Government to make the payment. (5) THE order of the High Court to the extent it directs the Government to pay the back wages and other monetary benefits to Respondent 3 is, therefore, set aside. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.