ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants on the application for condonation of delay. In view of the reasons stated in the application, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. I.A. No. 1225 of 2012 is allowed. Heard on merit. 2. The respondent-petitioner's writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 4181 of 2008 was allowed and thereafter L.P.A. No.401 of 2009 was preferred by the appellant and the said L.P.A. was dismissed and thereafter the petitioner was reinstated in the service on 4.12.2010. It will be worthwhile to mention here that the petitioner was sought to be superannuated on the basis of the age which has been found to be wrong. The petitioner had been wrongly superannuated from the service and therefore, the order of reinstatement was passed. At the time of passing of the order in W.P.(S) No. 4181 of 2008, the learned Single Judge clearly directed the respondent-authority “to pass consequential orders accordingly”. The order of reinstatement of petitioner with all back wages was denied by the respondent-authority, hence, the writ petitioner preferred another writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 63 of 2012 which was allowed vide order dated 18.01.2012 by the learned Single Judge holding that in view of the order passed in earlier round of litigation, the respondents should have granted full consequential benefits because in earlier round, the learned Single Judge directed the respondents “to pass consequential orders accordingly”, which means all benefits. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the back wages cannot be allowed in full in a case when the petitioner was not doing any work, for which he has relied upon a judgment delivered in the case of Mohd. Yunus Khan Vrs. U.P. Power Corporation Limited and others reported in (2009) 1 SCC 80 . In the said case, Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the facts of the case and held that the employee was not entitled to entire back wages because he did not work and also there was delay in filing S.L.P. and in that situation the employee was entitled to 50% back wages only. 4. We are of the considered view that the judgment delivered in the case of Mohd. Yunus Khan (supra) has no application with the facts of this case. 4. We are of the considered view that the judgment delivered in the case of Mohd. Yunus Khan (supra) has no application with the facts of this case. Respondent-petitioner has not delayed the matter but he obtained the relief from this Court by approaching this Court in time by filing writ petition in the year 2008 whereas petitioner was made to retire from 01.10.2008. The petitioner's writ petition was also allowed by the High Court directing the respondents “to pass consequential orders accordingly”. In that view of the matter, in fact, the issue was res-integra in the light of the earlier decision. There is meaning of the consequential orders, which could have been passed by the appellant. Otherwise also, looking to the facts of the case, we are of the considered view that it is not a fit case to call for any interference. Hence, this L.P.A. is dismissed.