MC 3493/2008 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI Heard Mr.RC Saikia, learned counsel for the applicant/respondent No.7 an d Mr. M. Bhuyan, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party/writ petitione r. This miscellaneous case has been filed seeking vacation/modification/alt eration of the interim order dated 28.5.2008 passed in the writ petition i.e. W. P.(C) No.2096 of 2008 out of which this miscellaneous case has arisen. Further o rders for release of salary to the applicant has also been prayed for. By order dated 28.5.2008 passed in W.P.(C) No.2096 of 2008, this Court h ad directed that appointment, if made, will be subject to the result of the case . Learned counsel for the applicant contends though appointed, because of the in terim order of this Court, salary of the applicant has not been paid. The argume nt cannot be appreciated in the face of absence of any such restriction in the C ourt’s order dated 28.5.2008. As the applicant has been appointed and claims to be working, salary cannot be withheld provided the applicant has been rendering service. In this regard, Shri Bhuyan, learned counsel for the opposite party/peti tioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the appointment of the applicant made by the order dated 8.8.2008 which is stated to be for 89 days. Shri Bhuyan has pointed out that the said period has expired. In the above circumstances, the order that is considered fit and appropr iate to be passed is that if the applicant is in service as on today and is cont inuing beyond the 89 days as stipulated in the order 8.8.2008, salary as may be due for the services rendered be paid to the applicant. Misc. case is disposed of.