9] Upon perusal of the contents of the letter written by the respondent No.4 to respondent No.3 dated 4th September, 2014, it appears that, respondent No.4 has not considered its statutory obligations so as to take decision about the approval to the services of the petitioner in terms of afore-mentioned directions issued by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.2930/2010. It is true that, so far financial benefits and back-wages are concerned, it is observed in the order passed by this Court that, the State is not liable to meet any responsibility for back-wages, or other financial implications. Therefore, it follows from the said order that, respondent Nos.2 and 3 management has to pay the said financial benefits accrued in favour of the petitioner, in view of the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.2930/2010. It was necessary on the part of the respondent No.4, to grant approval as a matter of formality, keeping in view the order passed by the High Court. However, without incurring any financial liability on the State or State Authorities so as to meet any financial burden for payment of back-wages, or to extent other financial benefits to the petitioner, by virtue of his reinstatement in the service of the respondent Nos.2 and 3.
