JUDGMENT : D.P. Choudhury, J. The petitioner, in the present writ petition, assails the order dated 27.09.2013 passed by the District Education Officer, Jajpur, opposite party no.3 vide Annexure-9 rejecting the claim of the petitioner with regard to payment of his arrear salary from 01.04.1999 to 23.05.2008. 2. The unshorn details of the writ petition is that the petitioner was appointed as a Science Bearer-cum-Watchman in Upendra Kumar High School, Abdalpur in the district of Jajpur on 29.08.1989 by the Secretary of the Managing Committee of said School vide Annexure-1. He joined in the said post on 01.09.1989. The School became an aided educational institution with effect from 01.06.1994 and grant-in-aid was released in favour of the School from that date. But, in the approval order dated 10.11.1995 vide Annexure-2, the appointment of the petitioner has not been taken into consideration as the same is not covered under the yard-stick prescribed by the Government vide order dated 27.03.1992. Against such order, petitioner has approached this Court by filing a writ petition vide O.J.C. No.1432 of 1996, which was heard and disposed of on 02.04.1996 by directing the Inspector of Schools, Jajpur Circle, Jajpur, opposite party no.3 therein to re-consider the question with regard to approval of petitioner’s appointment keeping in view the circular issued by the Government on 08.07.1981. In pursuance of the order passed by this Court on 02.04.1996, the services of the petitioner was regularized vide order dated 04.07.1997 being adjusted with effect from 01.06.1994 and as such he received his monthly salary from 01.06.1994 till 31.03.1999. Since no payment was made after 31.03.1999, the petitioner was compelled to file another writ petition before this Court vide OJC No.796 of 2000 which was disposed of on 27.02.2001 with a direction to the opposite parties to take appropriate steps regarding disbursement of the arrear as well as current salary of the petitioner within a period of four months. In spite of the direction dated 27.02.2001 issued by this Court, the opposite parties sat over the matter and tried to terminate the service of the petitioner. In spite of the direction dated 27.02.2001 issued by this Court, the opposite parties sat over the matter and tried to terminate the service of the petitioner. For that, the petitioner again filed OJC No.10789 of 2001 before this Court, which was disposed of on 07.08.2003 with an observation that the appointment/approval to the post of 4th Peon (Daftary) shall be considered in accordance with the seniority of the persons holding the post of peons and the salary as due and admissible shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks. 3. Be it stated that in the meantime, the opposite party no.2 had issued letter on 13.10.2003 to all the Inspector of Schools relating to appointment of 4th Peons as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa –V-Rajendra Kumar Das and others (Civil Appeal No.6844 of 2003 and batch of four other cases) reported in (2003) 10 SCC 411 . In pursuance of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, opposite party no.3 issued letter on 30.06.2004 to the Government for creation of post as per Government instruction and wanted some instruction with regard to release of arrear salary of the petitioner with effect from 01.04.1999 as per the direction of this Court issued in OJC No.10789 of 2001. 4. Be it stated that instead of complying the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the opposite parties 1 to 3 sat over the matter and finally issued Office Order on 07.05.2008 along with a list of employees in the light of the order dated 29.08.2003 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. So, the opposite party no.3 issued a letter on 23.05.2008 inviting the petitioner to join in the post of 4th Peon in Jajpur Circle and the petitioner continued to receive the salary. Since the name of the petitioner finds place as 4th Peon in the list published by the State Government and also his pay has been revised under ORSP Rules, 2008, the petitioner expected that he would get arrear salary from 01.04.1999 to 23.05.2008. Since the name of the petitioner finds place as 4th Peon in the list published by the State Government and also his pay has been revised under ORSP Rules, 2008, the petitioner expected that he would get arrear salary from 01.04.1999 to 23.05.2008. Due to non-payment of the arrear salary, the petitioner filed another writ petition before this Court vide W.P.(C) No.1862 of 2012 and the same was disposed of on 03.08.2012 with a direction to the School Authorities to submit bills and in the event the petitioner is entitled to the same, his arrear salary would be disbursed. Since the said order dated 03.08.2012 was not complied, the petitioner compelled to file a contempt petition vide CONTC No.350 of 2013 before this Court and after receipt of the notice issued by this Court in the contempt petition, the opposite party no.3 rejected the claim of the petitioner vide Annexure-9 and communicated the same to the petitioner. 5. The opposite party no.3 did not accede to the claim of the petitioner basing on the ground that the appointment of the petitioner was beyond the yard-stick while the school in question was an unaided one. He was only adjusted as 4th Peon pursuant to the Government Order dated 07.05.2008 vide office order dated 23.05.2008 for which he is not able to the arrear salary from 01.04.1999 to 23.05.2008. Since the petitioner was not paid arrear salary without any justifiable ground, he filed the present writ petition to quash the order of rejection vide Annexure-9 and prayed for a direction to pay arrear salary from 01.04.1999 to 23.05.2008. 6. SUBMISSIONS Mr.Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of rejection is illegal and unlawful inasmuch as the State Government has approved the services of the petitioner right from 01.06.1994 and as such, he has been working in the school in question. He further submitted that the appointment of the petitioner has been approved as 4th Peon in the school in pursuance of the order of this Court and subsequently upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and as such, the same cannot be denied by the State. He further submitted that the appointment of the petitioner has been approved as 4th Peon in the school in pursuance of the order of this Court and subsequently upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and as such, the same cannot be denied by the State. The opposite party no.4, in his counter affidavit, has clearly admitted that the petitioner has discharged his duties regularly from the date of his joining and he submitted the bills to opposite party no.3, the opposite parties 1 to 3 have not only disobeyed the order of this Court passed from time to time but also disobeyed the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed on 29.08.2003 in the case of State of Orissa –V-Rajendra Kumar Das (Supra) by issuing Office Order dated 07.05.2008 with prospective effect. 7. Mr.Das, learned counsel for the petitioner further stated that the opposite party no.2 has issued letter on 13.10.2003 vide Annexure-4 to all the Inspectors of Schools for complying the order dated 29.08.2003 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court with regard to appointment of 4th Peon and the State Government also issued Office Order dated 07.05.2008 again to comply such order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Since the delay occurred at the level of the State Government in compliance to the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the petitioner should not suffer. The Office Order dated 07.05.2008 directing to comply the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court prospectively is in clear violation of order of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed on 29.08.2003 which directed for compliance of the order within three months from the date of recommendation to give promotion to one of the Peon as Daftary and adjust the so called 4th Peon against consequential vacancy of Class-IV Post. Thus, he submitted that the petitioner is entitled to arrear salary for the period from 01.04.1999 to 23.05.2008 and accordingly, he prayed to quash the order of rejection vide Annexure-9. 8. Mr.Biswal, learned Standing Counsel for the School and Mass Education Department, with reference to the counter affidavit filed by the opposite party no.3, submitted that the present petitioner has suppressed the material facts because vide Government Order No.11432/SME dated 19.04.2000 of the School and Mass Education Department, the concept of 4th Peon was never prevalent. 8. Mr.Biswal, learned Standing Counsel for the School and Mass Education Department, with reference to the counter affidavit filed by the opposite party no.3, submitted that the present petitioner has suppressed the material facts because vide Government Order No.11432/SME dated 19.04.2000 of the School and Mass Education Department, the concept of 4th Peon was never prevalent. According to Government Order, if the management has made appointment beyond yardstick provided by the Government, the management has got the responsibility to bear the financial liability for payment of such salary to the incumbent. So, according to said Government Order dated 4th 19.04.2000, the petitioner is not entitled for drawal of salary as Peon. While admitting about the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 29.08.2003, learned Standing Counsel for the School and Mass Education Department submitted that for promotion of Class-IV employee as Daftary and simultaneously the consequential vacancy of Class-IV post to be filled up by other person the State Government issued notification on 07.05.2008. 9. Mr.Biswal, learned Standing Counsel for the School and Mass Education Department, relying on the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party no.3, submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Science Bearer-cum-Watchman by the Managing Committee of the school in question while it was unaided one, but subsequently the school declared as an aided institution with effect from 01.06.1994. On 10.11.1995, the Inspector of Schools, Jajpur Circle, Jajpur approved the post of teaching and non-teaching staff of the school, but did not approve the appointment of the petitioner as the same has not covered any yard-stick prescribed by the Government vide letter dated 27.03.1992. But, in pursuance of the order of this Court passed in OJC No.1432 of 1996, the appointment of the petitioner was approved with effect from 01.06.1994 vide order dated 04.07.1997. According to opposite party no.3, the petitioner was disengaged by opposite party no.4, which was challenged before this Court in OJC No.10789 of 2001. 10. Mr.Biswal, learned Standing Counsel for the School and Mass Education Department further submitted that when the matter of 4th Peon being referred to the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 29.08.2003, directed for introduction of concept of 4th Peon, the State Government issued Office Order dated 07.05.2008 prescribing the modalities to adjust such 4th Peon. Mr.Biswal, learned Standing Counsel for the School and Mass Education Department further submitted that when the matter of 4th Peon being referred to the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 29.08.2003, directed for introduction of concept of 4th Peon, the State Government issued Office Order dated 07.05.2008 prescribing the modalities to adjust such 4th Peon. In view of such Office Order, the petitioner was adjusted against 4th Peon and accordingly, he has been paid the salary of Class-IV post and there is no any non-compliance of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as of this Court. He submitted that since his post was approved only with effect from 2008 in pursuance of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the petitioner would not be entitled for any claim of arrear salary before that, as asked for. Again relying on the counter affidavit of opposite parties 3 and 4, he submitted that since the school has not met the yard-stick of number of students more than 100, the appointment of the petitioner was not considered. 11. POINT FOR DETERMINATION: The only point for determination is that whether the petitioner was working as 4th Peon from 01.06.1994 or from 23.05.2008? 12. DISCUSSIONS It is admitted fact that the petitioner was appointed as Science Bearer-cum-Watchman in Upendra Kumar High School, Abdalpur. It is not in dispute that on 01.06.1994, the appointment of the petitioner was not approved by the order. It is also admitted fact that by virtue of the order of this Court passed in OJC No.1432 of 1996, the post of the petitioner was approved as 4th Peon with effect from 01.06.1994. From the judgment passed by this Court in OJC No.1432 of 1996, it appears that the opposite parties have considered the application of the petitioner keeping in view the letter No.28465/EYS dated 08.07.1981 which stipulated, inter alia, that a school having the roll strength of 100 and above, would be entitled to a fourth peon. Since the school in question admittedly got more than 100 students, the post of the petitioner as 4th Peon was approved with effect from 01.06.1994 by the State Government. Since the school in question admittedly got more than 100 students, the post of the petitioner as 4th Peon was approved with effect from 01.06.1994 by the State Government. Even if he is working as such, certain arrear dues for the period from 01.06.1994 to 31.03.1999 has not been paid for which the petitioner had to approach this Court again by filing W.P.(C) No.796 of 2000 whereunder the Court directed for disbursement of arrear salary for that period. 13. Mr.Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the petitioner was travelling this Court time and again for the rights to be exercised, the opposite parties tried to terminate his service for which the petitioner had filed OJC No.10789 of 2001 wherein an order has been passed by this Court not to terminate him from service and a further order was passed to disburse the arrear salary with 18% interest. 14. It is the admitted fact by both the parties that in the meantime Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Orissa –V-Rajendra Kumar Das (Supra) have passed the order on 29.08.2003 and at paragraphs-12 and 13, it has been observed as follows: “12. We, therefore, while allowing these appeals direct that the management of the concerned institution shall move the concerned authorities for approval to the promotional appointment of a class IV employee, as "Daftary". Simultaneously, it can also recommend for appointment to the class IV post, in case approval is accorded to the recommendation for appointment of "Daftary" on promotion. The decision on both motions shall be taken within three months from the date of submission of the recommendation in accordance with law keeping in view the operative yardsticks in force at the time of appointments were made. Even if there has been refusal earlier, the matter shall be reconsidered in the light of what has been stated above. 13. Before we part with this case we must indicate that undisputedly there were several decision of the Division Bench rendered at earlier points of time, taking a view contrary to the one taken in the impugned judgments. Learned counsel for the respondents (writ petitioners) fairly accepted that it is so. In fact, copy of one such decision dated 3.12.1998 in O.J.C. 14004/97 was placed on record. The decisions do not appear to have been brought to the notice of the learned Judges hearing the writ petitions. Learned counsel for the respondents (writ petitioners) fairly accepted that it is so. In fact, copy of one such decision dated 3.12.1998 in O.J.C. 14004/97 was placed on record. The decisions do not appear to have been brought to the notice of the learned Judges hearing the writ petitions. This speaks volumes about the seriousness exhibited by learned counsel appearing for the parties, particularly the State Government, before the High Court.” 15. In spite of several orders of this Court passed from time to time and in view of the aforesaid order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the petitioner could not get his arrear salary for the period from 01.04.1999 to 23.05.2008 for which he filed W.P.(C) No.1862 of 2012 before this Court and the said writ petition was disposed of on 03.08.2012 directing the opposite party no.4-school to submit bills for the aforesaid unpaid period and the same be considered by the opposite party no.3 therein and in the event the petitioner is found eligible to receive his claim, the same shall be released in his favour within a period of two months. Annexure-8 series show that the opposite party no.4 has submitted arrear salary bill for the period in question on 25.09.2012 to the District Education Officer, Jajpur. On 27.09.2013, the District Education Officer, Jajpur refused to grant the arrear salary vide Annexure-9 on the ground that the petitioner was only adjusted as 4th Peon on 23.05.2008. In Annexure-9, it is stated that the order being passed by the State Government on 07.05.2008, the adjustment of so called 4th Peon being prospective in nature, the petitioner should be only adjusted as 4th Peon from the date he resumes duty. Instead of complying the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court within the time specified by it, the Government issued Office Order dated 07.05.2008, which is reproduced below: “GOVERNMENT OF ORISSA DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL & MASS EDUCATION No.9087/SME. Dt.7.5.08 IX-SME (HC)-19/06(Pt-1) OFFICE ORDER Government of Orissa, Education and Youth Service Deptt. Issued Circular No.28365 EYS dt.8.7.81 fixing standard staff for the non-Government Secondary Schools. So far as Peons are concerned, three Peons with following designations have been provided in the above circular: (i) Office Peon -1 (ii) Science Attendant – 1 (iii) Night Watcher-cum-Sweeper – 1 It has been further provided that where the roll strength of the school exceeds 100, one post of Daftary is admissible. So far as Peons are concerned, three Peons with following designations have been provided in the above circular: (i) Office Peon -1 (ii) Science Attendant – 1 (iii) Night Watcher-cum-Sweeper – 1 It has been further provided that where the roll strength of the school exceeds 100, one post of Daftary is admissible. Subsequently by another circular No.15500-SVIIEP-50/91-E, dtd. 27th March, 1992 the position was further clarified that the roll strength of 10 Class High School in 500 (five hundred) or more, one post of Daftary is admissible. As regards the post of Daftary in 3-Class, 5-Class & 7-Class High School the Circular is silent. While disposing of the Civil Appeal No.6844/2003, State of Orissa Vrs. Rajendra Kumar Das and another and batch of 4 other C.As, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in their judgment dt. 29.8.03 have observed as follows: “If a school was entitled to have a “Daftary” certainly the appointment was to be made by promoting one of the three persons, i.e., Office Peon. Science Attendant and Night Watcher-cum-Sweeper, there being no other Class-IV post in the institution. It is for the Managing Committee of the institution to decide who is to be promoted and thereafter seek approval of the concerned authorities. We, therefore, while allowing these appeals direct that the management of the concerned institution shall move the concerned authorities for approval to the promotion appointment of a Class-IV employee as “Daftary”. Simultaneously, it can also recommend for appointment to the Class-IV post, in case approval is accorded to the recommendation for appointment of “Daftary” on promotion. The decision on both motions shall be taken within three months from the date of submission of the recommendation in accordance with law keeping in view of the operative yard-sticks in force at the time of appointments were made. Even if there has been refusal earlier, the matter shall be reconsidered in the light of what has been stated above.” In accordance with the above observations and directions contained in the judgment dated 29.08.03, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the proposal of the Director, Secondary Education, Orissa vis-a-vis detail information furnished by the Inspector of Schools concerned were examined and found that the Managing Committee of the concerned High Schools under respective Education Circle had appointed the 4th Peon mentioned against each High school as per list enclosed. At that point of time, the student strength of the school was above 100. As such, one post of “Daftary” in the said school as per yardstick for adjustment of 4th Peon against the consequential vacancy in accordance with principle laid down in the judgment dt. 29.8.03 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. That after careful consideration, Government have been pleased to allow the Management to give promotion to one of the existing Class-IV employees to the post of Daftary, taking into consideration the merit-cum-suitability with due regard to seniority and to adjust the so called 4th Peon as mentioned in the list enclosed in the consequential vacancy of Class-IV post in the said school. (i) In case of the following so called 4th Peon out of the enclosed list who is over-aged at the time of appointment, age limit may be relaxed by the Managing Committee through adoption of appropriate Resolution. xxx xxx (II) In case of the following so-called 4th Peon out of the enclosed list who were found under-aged at the time of appoint, a condition may be imposed in his appointment order that the service rendered prior to attaining the age of 18 years shall not be taken account as per Clause-6(1) of Orissa Aided Educational Institutions Employees Retirement Benefit Rules, 1981. xx xx xx (III) In case of the following so-called 4th Peons out of the list enclosed, who do not possess minimum qualification prescribed for the Peons, i.e, Class-VII may be designated specifically as Nigh Wahter-cum-Sweeper for which he needs to be a mere literate. xx xx xx Sri Prasanna Ku. Rout, Upendra Kumar H.S., Abdalpur, Jajpur Circle (Sl.31) xx xx xx (IV) In case of the following so called 4th Peon out of the enclosed list the stipulation made at Para-(i) and (III) above will be made applicable. xx xx xx The adjustment shall be prospective in nature and the aforesaid so called 4th Peon so adjusted is entitled for salaries (grant-in-aid) only after he/she resumes duty in the said post. The post of Daftary in the said High School shall be abolished automatically consequent upon retirement/ resignation/death etc. Of the incumbent. The Inspector of Schools concerned shall take immediate steps to issue necessary office order in this regard within a week positively from the date of receipt of this order and submit compliance to Govt. forthwith. The post of Daftary in the said High School shall be abolished automatically consequent upon retirement/ resignation/death etc. Of the incumbent. The Inspector of Schools concerned shall take immediate steps to issue necessary office order in this regard within a week positively from the date of receipt of this order and submit compliance to Govt. forthwith. This disposes of the claims of petitioners pursuant to the orders/judgments of the Hon’ble High Court/Hon’ble Supreme court, if any, filed by the so called 4th Peons. All concerned be intimated accordingly. This has been concurred in by Finance Deptt. In their UOR No.13/SS-1 dtd.14.1.08. Sd/- U.P.Singh Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Govt xx xx xx ” 16. This Court has already disposed of a similar nature of case, i.e, Narayan Dash –V-State of Orissa represented by Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of School and Mass Education Department and others (W.P.(C) No.19969 of 2015 and at paragraph-15 of the judgment dated 18.10.2017, it has been observed as under: “15. xx xx xx The aforesaid Office Order issued by the State Government clearly states that the same has been issued in pursuance of the order daed 29.08.2003 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa –V-Rajendra Kumar Das reported in (2003) 10 SCC 411 . It is clearly mentioned in the Office Order dated 07.05.2008 that in accordance with the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Government allowed to give promotion to one of the existing Class-IV employees to the post of Daftary and to adjust the so called 4th Peon in the list of schools including the school of the petitioner as per the pleadings of the parties. There again it is mentioned that the adjustment shall be prospective in nature and the 4th Peon adjusted would be entitled only after he resumes duty in the said post. When there is specific direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, that decision on both the motions should be taken within three months from the date of recommendation and in the particular case, the recommendation has already been made by the concerned school on 05.11.2003 in pursuance of the letter of the State Government, the direction under the Office Order dated 07.05.2008. Instead of complying the order within the time specified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it was directed that adjustment shall be prospective in nature, i.e., from the date of issuance of Office Order dated 07.05.2008 can be said to be contemptuous. Thus, the Office Order dated 07.05.2008 cannot be allowed to contravene the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to make the list so approved prospective from 07.05.2008 but the same should be made applicable retrospectively, i.e., three months from the date of recommendation as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. When the State Government has sat over the matter for five years instead of complying the order of the Hon’ble Supreme court, undoubtedly such order of the State Government affect the petitioner and the petitioner is entitled to the benefit as accrued under the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.” 17. In view of the continuous orders of this Court right from OJC No.1432 of 1996, OJC No.796 of 2000, OJC No.10789 of 2001 and W.P.(C) No.1862 of 2012, the petitioner being in continuous working with approval of his post as 4th Peon, he cannot be denied the benefits. Moreover, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case by modifying the order of this Court only to create a post of Daftary, who is to be adjusted from senior most peon and the 4th Peon is to be adjusted in the 3rd post, the Office Order dated 07.05.2008 cannot be said to be prospective in nature in case of this petitioner. Apart from this, it is reiterated that Office Order dated 07.05.2008 being not a policy decision of the Government but an order to implement the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the same has to be construed as operative from the date the Hon’ble Supreme Court directs. It is needless to say that Hon’ble Supreme Court have directed on 29.08.2003 to implement the concept of 4th Peon within a period of three months from the date of recommendation made by the concerned school. The plea of the opposite parties expressed through Annexure-9 that the so called 4th Peon being only adopted on 07.05.2008 by the Government, the petitioner is not entitled to receive the salary from 01.04.1999 to 23.05.2008 not only violated order of Hon’ble Supreme Court but also against the order passed by this Court time and again. The plea of the opposite parties expressed through Annexure-9 that the so called 4th Peon being only adopted on 07.05.2008 by the Government, the petitioner is not entitled to receive the salary from 01.04.1999 to 23.05.2008 not only violated order of Hon’ble Supreme Court but also against the order passed by this Court time and again. From the impugned order vide Annexure-9, it appears that the petitioner has been adjusted against 4th Peon only with effect from 23.05.2008 but not before that although he has been working as such is a sorry state of affairs. Hence, Annexure-9 is illegal and improper to the extent it is made prospective for the petitioner. 18. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the petitioner having worked as a 4th Peon with due approval from 01.06.1994 till 23.05.2008 has to be observed affirmative in favour of the petitioner. The point is answered accordingly. 19. CONCLUSION In the writ petition, it has been prayed to declare the impugned order vide Annexure-9 as illegal and bad in law with a further prayer to quash the same. At the same time, the petitioner has prayed to direct the opposite parties for releasing the monthly arrear salary for the period from 01.04.1999 to 23.05.2008. It has been already observed in the aforesaid paragraphs that the petitioner has been working as 4th Peon since 01.06.1994 with approval and subsequently also he has been asked in successive writ petitions to clear his arrear salary. Moreover, his case is more strengthened by the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court creating the post of Daftary so as to adjust the 4th Peon against 3rd Peon post. Thus, the order dated 27.09.2013 passed by the District Education Officer, Jajpur, opposite party no.3 vide Annexure-9, being not sustainable in law, is liable to be quashed and the Court do so. Since under the letter dated 25.09.2012 vide Annexure-8 series, the opposite party no.4 has already sent the arrear salary particulars of the petitioner for the period from 01.04.1999 to 23.05.2008 as observed above, the opposite party no.3 is directed to verify the accounts and make payment of the same in favour of the petitioner as per procedure within a period of six months from today failing which the same shall be paid to the petitioner with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.