AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties on the stay application as well as application filed by Respondent for vacation of ad-interim ex-parte stay order.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that as per judgment dated 06.12.2003 passed by the Tribunal, the Petitioner has already paid the amount to Respondent whereas learned Counsel for the Respondent contended that the amount paid to Respondent is not in accordance with law, therefore, ad-interim ex-parte stay order may be vacated.
After considering submissions of learned Counsel for the parties, particularly, in view of the fact that whatever amount the Respondent was getting on the date of his termination, the amount of arrear was calculated on that basis and the same has been paid, I am not inclined to vacate ad-interim ex-parte stay order passed by this Court.
Stay application is accordingly allowed.
Ad-interim ex-parte stay order dated 01.07.2009 is confirmed till final disposal of the revision petition.
In view of above, the application filed by the Respondent for vacation of adinterim ex-parte stay order is dismissed.