MUKUL MUDGAL, J. ( 1 ) THIS Letters Patent Appeal challenges the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 18. 4. 2006 which granted the following reliefs to the appellant:a. Although recourse to clause 5 of the contract dated 26. 4. 2000 by the respondent No. 3 to terminate the services of the petitioner might be arbitrary, the said decision by respondent No. 3 cannot be considered to be malicious or motivated on the basis of material on record. b. In addition to the sum of Rs. 76,334/- given to the petitioner by the respondent No. 3 a further sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- shall be paid by the respondent no. 3 to the petitioner. c. The third respondent shall also consider and pass an appropriate order with respect to the housing loan granted to the petitioner with an appropriate condition of repayment through equated monthly instalments on the condition of the petitioner offering immovable properties as a security. ( 2 ) THE brief facts of this case are as follows:a. On 3. 7. 2000 the appellant joined the service of Tata Home finance Limited as Regional Manager (North ). In April 2001 the appellant was confirmed in service. b. On 7. 9. 2003 Tata Home Finance Limited was taken over by the respondent No. 2 i. e. Industrial Development Bank of India (IDBI) Limited and renamed as IDBI Home Finance Limited which is respondent No. 3 in the present case. c. On 30. 6. 2004 the services of the appellant were summarily terminated by the respondent No. 3 by sending him a cheque of three months basic pay in lieu of notice. d. In November, 2004 the appellant filed a writ petition challenging the summary termination of his services by the respondent No. 3. e. On 18. 4. 2006 the learned Single Judge of this Court while holding that the termination of the appellant was illegal declined to direct reinstatement of the appellant and instead directing payment of sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- as compensation to the appellant. The learned Single Judge also directed the respondent No. 3 to pass an order of revision of terms of housing loan being availed of by the appellant from the respondent No. 3. The learned single Judge did not advert to the issue of back salary. ( 3 ) IT is against this judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 18. 4. The learned single Judge did not advert to the issue of back salary. ( 3 ) IT is against this judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 18. 4. 2006 that the present LPA has been preferred in relation to salary for the past period, quantum of compensation in lieu of reinstatement and terms of housing loan. ( 4 ) AFTER hearing learned senior counsel Shri B. B. Sawhney for the appellant and Shri J. L. Gupta for the respondent No. 3 we are happy to note that the parties have agreed for disposal of the present appeal in the following terms: 1. The compensation payable to the appellant as per the learned Single Judge's judgment shall be enhanced by adding a sum of Rs. 76,334/- X 2 = Rs. 1,52,668/ -. The said amount shall be paid by the respondent within four weeks from today. 2. No penal interest shall be charged against the appellant on account of conversion from a loan account of employee to a loan account of a customer. ( 5 ) THE appellant is present and has consented through his senior counsel shri B. B. Sawhney to the above terms. ( 6 ) THE appeal stands disposed of in the above terms and the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge stands modified to the extent indicated above with no order as to costs.