JUDGMENT Mansoor Ahmad Mir 1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22nd April, 2010, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP (T) No. 6209 of 2008, titled Om Prakash Goel versus H.P. Tourism Development Corporation Ltd., whereby the writ petition came to be allowed, hereinafter referred to as ‘the impugned judgment’. 2. The writ petitioner-respondent herein was terminated from service, constraining him to invoke the jurisdiction of various forums and also the apex Court by the medium of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 13560 of 1983, which was allowed vide order dated 26th May, 1991. It is apt to reproduce the relevant portion of the judgment, supra, herein:- “In the result the termination order is quashed and consequently the petitioner shall be reinstated in service. However, he shall be entitled to the full back wages upto the date of his enrolment as a lawyer which was in the month of October, 1982. From the date of his enrolment upto the date of reinstatement he shall be entitled to the back wages at the rate of half of the subsistence allowance per month and the total amount shall be computed on that basis. Out of that the income of Rs 15,550/- admittedly earned by him as a practicing lawyer shall be deducted and the balance amount shall be paid to the petitioner. The amount so paid to him shall, for the purpose of income tax, be spread over as if derived during those financial years from the date of his dismissal till the date of reinstatement. However, we would like to make it clear that it is open to the Corporation to proceed with the disciplinary enquiry if it so chooses. The special leave petition is accordingly disposed of. In the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.” 3. The writ petitioner was not granted benefits, constraining him to file Original Application No. 3261 of 1999, titled Shri Om Prakash Goel versus HPTDC Ltd., before the Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’), seeking direction to the writ respondent-appellant herein, to implement the judgment dated 6th May, 1991 passed by the apex Court, in letter and spirit. 4. The respondents filed reply to the Original application. During the pendency of the petition, the writ petitioner came to be promoted vide order dated 19th October, 2000. 5. 4. The respondents filed reply to the Original application. During the pendency of the petition, the writ petitioner came to be promoted vide order dated 19th October, 2000. 5. On abolition of the Tribunal, the said original application was transferred to this Court and came to be diarized as CWP (T) No. 6209 of 2008. This Court allowed the writ petition vide the impugned judgment dated 22nd April, 2010. 6. We have gone through the judgment passed by the apex Court and the pleadings of the parties. 7. We are of the considered view that the appellant has dragged the writ petitioner-respondent from pillar to post and post to pillar. The appellant had to release the benefits to the writ petitioner, to which he was entitled to and was under command to comply with the judgment passed by the Apex Court. 8. Having said so, we are of the considered view that the Writ Court has rightly passed the impugned judgment. No interference is required. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is upheld and the appeal is dismissed.