ORDER N.N. Tiwari, J. 1. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 8/10.9.03 (Annexure-9) passed by the respondent No. 3 whereby in defiance of the order of this Court and circumventing the effect of the direction of the Division Bench of this Court as contained in Annexure 8, the order of petitioners termination has been maintained contrary to the directives of this Court. 2. The petitioners case is that he was appointed in the year 1974. In the year 1977 a notice was issued by the Management that large scale of impersonation have come to the knowledge of the Management and, therefore, a committee was constituted to ascertain the bona fide of the individual workmen including the petitioner. Subsequently, a number of workmen including the petitioner were discontinued from the services by order dated 28.2.81. The grievance of the petitioner was that he was neither given any opportunity to defend himself nor the enquiry report was ever served on him before terminating his services. Having been aggrieved by the said arbitrary order, the petitioner had raised the industrial dispute which was ultimately referred for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2. The learned Tribunal after adjudication rendered its award dated 30.8.85, vide Reference Case No. 94/82, whereby it had been clearly held that the action of the Management in terminating the services of the concerned workmen was not justified. It was further held that the concerned workmen including the petitioner whose name stood at serial No. 16 will be deemed to be continuing in service and will be entitled to the back wages and other consequential benefits since the date he was stopped from working. The petitioners grievance is that in spite of the said award, another order dated 24.3.94 was passed by the respondent No. 2 by which the petitioners services were again terminated on the same allegation of impersonation. The petitioner challenged the said order in writ application, being CWJC No. 2604/95 (R). In the said writ application counter affidavit was filed. The matter was contested and thereafter by a detailed order dated 6.9.02 the said writ application was allowed and the impugned order of termination was set aside. The Management thereafter preferred LPA No. 540/2002. The petitioner challenged the said order in writ application, being CWJC No. 2604/95 (R). In the said writ application counter affidavit was filed. The matter was contested and thereafter by a detailed order dated 6.9.02 the said writ application was allowed and the impugned order of termination was set aside. The Management thereafter preferred LPA No. 540/2002. A Division Bench of this Court after hearing the parties disposed of the said LPA by order dated 1.5.03 with the following directions : "In the light of the direction as above, the appeal is disposed of by modifying the order of the learned single Judge, directing the management to decide the effect of the award first and depending on the finding on it either proceed to decide the other issues or to drop the proceedings, the Management is directed to complete the proceeding expeditiously and the workman is directed to co-operate in the expeditious disposal of the proceeding." 3. The respondents, thereafter, passed the impugned order dated 8/10.9.03 whereby it has been held that the petitioner Deoraj Bhartiya is an impersonator and again terminated the services of the petitioner. It is relevant to mention here that the award of the learned Tribunal was not set aside or modified and the respondents again passed the termination order on the same allegation which could not be established by the Management before the Tribunal. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Management supporting the said order on the ground that there were other materials which were not considered in the earlier domestic enquiry that the case of impersonation has been established. 5. Mr. Kalyan Ray, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the impugned order dated 8/10.9.03 as contained in Annexure-9 has been passed in clear defiance of the final and binding award referred to by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal as well as the orders passed by this Court, without any legal justification. The petitioner has been subjected to hostile discrimination and has been put to suffer unnecessary loss, harassment, torture and mental agony. Learned counsel submitted that the Division Bench of this Court has clearly directed in the order dated 1.5.03 passed in LPA No. 540/02 to decide the effect of the award first and depending on the finding on it either proceed to decide the other issues or to drop the proceedings. Learned counsel submitted that the Division Bench of this Court has clearly directed in the order dated 1.5.03 passed in LPA No. 540/02 to decide the effect of the award first and depending on the finding on it either proceed to decide the other issues or to drop the proceedings. In the impugned order the concerned respondents have found that the learned Tribunal has come to the finding that the Management has not been able to establish that the concerned workman had impersonated or he is an imposter. But in spite of the same, the Management has restored the order of termination which had been earlier quashed by this Court. Learned counsel submitted that the impugned order has been passed by sitting over the order of the statutory Tribunal and that of this Court. 6. Mr. A.K. Mehta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, tried to justify the impugned order but soon thereafter fairly submitted that it has been found by the learned Tribunal that the Management has not been able to prove that the concerned workman had impersonated or is an imposter. He, however submitted that the impugned order has been passed taking into consideration ofsome material which could not be brought on record at the time of domestic enquiry. 7. After hearing the parties and considering the materials on record, I find that this Court by order dated 1.5.03 passed in LPA No. 540/02 directed the Management to decide the effect of the award first and depending on the finding on it, either proceed to decide the other issues or to drop the proceeding. But the effect of the award has not been considered, whereunder it was found by the learned Tribunal that the Management failed to prove that the concerned workman is an impersonator or imposter. Yet the Project Officer has again passed the order of termination on the self same allegation and has thereby circumvented the award of the learned Tribunal as well as the order of this Court. The impugned order dated 8/10.9.03 as contained in Annexure 9 is thus wholly perverse and vitiated and the same is hereby quashed. 8. From the attitude shown in the impugned order (Annexure 9), it is apparent that the respondents have deliberately ignored the order of this Court and have attempted to malign the majesty of this Court. The impugned order dated 8/10.9.03 as contained in Annexure 9 is thus wholly perverse and vitiated and the same is hereby quashed. 8. From the attitude shown in the impugned order (Annexure 9), it is apparent that the respondents have deliberately ignored the order of this Court and have attempted to malign the majesty of this Court. More so for the same charge, which the Management failed to establish, orders of the petitioners termination have been issued thrice in spite of setting aside the first order of termination and the clear direction of this court to consider the effect of the award of the learned Tribunal. In that view, there is substance in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been put to suffer unnecessary loss, injury and harassment and to severe mental torture and agony. In that view, this writ application is allowed with a cost of Rs. 50,000/-(Fifty thousand only), to be paid by the respondents, out of which Rs. 25,000/- (Twenty five thousand only) shall be paid to the petitioner and the rest Rs. 25,000 (Twenty five thousand) shall be deposited in the account of the Jharkhand State Legal Services Authorities within a period of one month from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. 9. It is made clear that the petitioner is entitled to all the back wages with interest at the rate of 5% per annum which shall be payable within the period of one month. If the respondents fail to pay the said arrears within the prescribed period, the petitioner shall be further entitled to get compensatory interest @ 10% per annum over and above the said interest @ 5% per annum.