1/3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- SPL. APPL. No. 353 OF 1998 STATE & ORS. V/S RADHEY RAM & ORS. Mr. B.L.BHATI, for the appellant / petitioner Mr. R. K. SINGHAL, for the respondent Date of Order : 3.12.2007 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. HON'BLE SHRI MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI,J. ORDER ----- This appeal has been filed seeking to challenge the order dated 15.01.1998 of learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition was dismissed as infructuous, in view of the subsequent payments, made to the petitioner, and his regularisation, thereafter. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, that in the writ petition, there was interim stay order, granted by this Court on 03.07.1992, directing the writ petitioner to be paid the minimum of the pay-scale of Pump Driver Grade II, and when payments were not made in compliance thereof, a contempt petition had been filed, which was decided on 12.09.1994, wherein, the present appellants were directed to make the payment, and for that 2/3 some time was granted, however, it was expressly made clear as under:- “It is made clear that the final hearing of the case will depend on this payment being made. It is also made clear that whatever payment is being made under the orders of this Court shall be subject to final orders as to adjustment or otherwise to be passed while finally deciding the case.” Thus, the relief received by the writ petition, which has been taken on account by the learned Single Judge, is only pursuant to and consequent upon aforementioned interim order passed in proceedings. Consequently, the writ petition could not be said to have been infructuous, on that account. We have gone through the interim order of the learned Single Judge dated 03.07.1992 and the order passed in contempt proceedings on 12.09.1994 as quoted above. In our view, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant has force. In view of the the express direction given in the contempt proceedings, it could not be said that simply because in compliance of the interim order of the Court, some benefit has been received by the petitioner, the matter was not required to be adjudicated and the petition could be dismissed as infructuous. Obviously, the impugned order cannot be sustained. 3/3 The question, thereafter is, as to whether the writ petition should be sent back to the learned Single Judge for being heard on merits, or should be decided at this stage by this Court itself. It is not in dispute, that on merits and dehors the writ petition, the writ petitioner has been made semi-permanent, and has been given consequential benefits. In our view, from the pleadings taken in the writ petition, it cannot be said that the writ petitioner, is or was, entitled to relief beyond what has been granted by the State by making him semi-permanent. In that view of the matter, the appeal is disposed off, holding the writ petitioner not be entitled to the relief of the writ petition, however, the status of the semi-permanent, granted by the State, and the consequential benefits given thereupon, shall continue with the petitioner, and the petitioner will be entitled to further consequences thereon, if any. ( MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI ),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J. preety