Judgment Surya Kant, J. 1. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 02.12.2008 (Annexure P-6) whereby the respondent-Federation has declined to release the arrears of six increments, which were directed to be released by the Revisional Authority. 2. Suffice it to mention that the petitioner joined the respondent-Federation as an Accountant-C Grade on 01.08.1971 and he has retired from the post of Field Officer with effect from 31.01.2006 on attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioner was charge-sheeted in the year 2001 for the negligence in the manufacturing of LDPE polythene sheets and pursuant to a departmental enquiry, the punishment of bringing him to the minimum of the time scale of pay was imposed vide order dated 12.07.2002. The said order was modified on an appeal by the petitioner and the punishment was reduced to down grading of ten increments in the time scale of the pay. The petitioner further preferred a revision petition, which was also partly accepted by the Revisional Authority, vide order dated 29.12.2003 (Annexure P-2) whereby the punishment was reduced to down grading of four annual grade increments in the time scale of pay of the post. The petitioner was still aggrieved and has impugned this order before this Court in C.W.P. No.13196 of 2004, which is still pending consideration. 3. The respondents have now refused to release the arrears of six increments, which were withheld in terms of the order passed by the Disciplinary/Appellate Authorities on the plea that the revisional order dated 29.12.2003 is under challenge before this Court at the instance of the petitioner. 4. The aforesaid stand taken by the respondent is discernible from the averments made in the impugned order dated 02.12.2008 (Annexure P-6) as well as para 4 of the reply/affidavit filed before this Court. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length, I am of the considered view that the impugned action of not releasing the arrears of six increments of the petitioner pursuant to the orders passed by the Disciplinary/Appellate Authorities, is unsustainable in law. 5. I say so for the reason that the orders passed by the Disciplinary and the Appellate Authorities merged into the order dated 29.12.2003 (Annexure P-2), passed by the Revisional Authority. 5. I say so for the reason that the orders passed by the Disciplinary and the Appellate Authorities merged into the order dated 29.12.2003 (Annexure P-2), passed by the Revisional Authority. The ultimate punishment imposed on the petitioner stands reduced to down grading of four annual increments in the time scale of the post occupied by him as directed by the Revisional Authority. The punishment earlier imposed on the petitioner by the Disciplinary or Appellate Authority having been modified to that extent, cannot be given effect against him. 6. The plea that the revision order dated 29.12.2003 is under challenge before this Court is wholly misconceived. Suffice it to observe that the challenge is at the instance of the petitioner and not by the respondents, who have accepted the Revisional order. If at all this Court would interfere with the said order would ensure more benefit(s) to the petitioner. The interference, if any, by this Court, would not revive the orders passed by the Disciplinary or the Appellate Authorities. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 02.12.2008 (Annexure P-6) is quashed and the respondents are directed to release the arrears of six increments of the petitioner withheld as a result of the orders passed by the Disciplinary and the Appellate Authorities. The arrears along with simple interest at the rate of 6% shall be released in favour of the petitioner within a period of three mopths from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. The petitioner would also be entitled to the consequential revision of his retiral dues as per the Rules. Ordered accordingly.Petition allowed