1 D.B.Civil Special Appeal No.726/2008 The State of Raj. & ors. V/s Mahaveer Singh Mehta 18.8.2008 Hon'ble the Chief Justice Mr.Narayan Roy Hon'ble Mr.Justice Sangeet Lodha Mr.N.M.Lodha, Addl.Advocate General for the appellants. Heard. The writ petitioner, who was in deputation, was directed to be repatriated, but somehow or the other, the writ application was filed and status quo order was passed, as a consequence of that, the writ petitioner continued on the deputation post. We are informed that the writ petitioner by now has been repatriated and proper posting has been given. The learned Single Judge of this Court, however, keeping in view these aspects of the matter, has directed as under:- “(A) The order dated 30.07.2003 is not interfered in view of the lapse of four and half years time pending writ petition. (B) The respondents petitioner will not claim 50% of the wages from 25.08.2003 to the date of posting of order to be passed by the respondents now. (C) The respondents will pay only 50% of the wages to the petitioner for the intervening period as mentioned in para 2 of the directions. (D) The respondents will pass posting order of petitioner within ten days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Petitioner is directed to join his services at the place where he is now posted. The necessary payment of the wages may be made within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order as otherwise agreed by the learned AAG. The entire intervening period starting from 21.08.2003 till date of joining of the petitioner pursuant to the order of posting now to be passed, same would be treated as continuous.” The order impugned issuing directions, as referred to above, appears to be a consent order. However, Mr.Lodha, learned counsel for the appellants submits that no such concession was given at the time of disposal of the writ application. The question however becomes redundant in view of the repatriation of the writ petitioner and the directions 2 issued by this court directing payment of consequential benefit, in that view of the matter, need not be interfered with. This appeal accordingly is dismissed. (Sangeet Lodha)J. (Narayan Roy)CJ Parmar