- (1.)
" (1) To hold that interim order dated 2-9-2002 is an odd final order dated 22-6-05 of W. P. No. 1392/02. (2) To direct the respondent No. 1 to return the entire amount with interest to the petitioner as received by her by way of interim relief dated 2-9-2002 and further direct to pay cost of the litigation throughout. (3) Any other appropriate writs, orders, directions as may be deemed just and appropriate in the circumstances of the case may kindly be issued in the interest of justice. "

(2.)THE facts of the case are that respondent No. 1 Smt. Pushpa Lata bajpai filed a writ petition which was registered as W. P. No. 1392/2002. In the aforesaid writ petition, an interim order was issued on 2-9-2002 Annexure P-1 by this Court by which the petitioner was directed to pay salary to Smt. Pushpa Lata bajpai from January, 2002. It appears that the aforesaid salary was not paid and a Contempt Petition was moved by Smt. Pushpa Lata Bajpai. During the pendency of the aforesaid contempt petition, the petitioner moved an application seeking review of the order dated 2-9-2002, but it is stated that the aforesaid review application was dismissed by the High Court. Thereafter the petitioner paid salary to Smt. Pushpa Lata Bajpai. Ultimately, on 22-6-2005, writ petition was dismissed in default of appearance as it reflects from order annexure P-6. Now this petition has been filed for the recovery of the amount which was paid by the petitioner in view of the ad interim writ issued in W. P. No. 1392/2002.
(3.)LEARNED Counsel for petitioner submitted that the salary to respondent No. 1 was paid because of the ad interim writ issued by this Court. Now the petition itself has been dismissed without making any direction in respect of the salary paid to respondent No. 1 because of ad interim writ in the matter. Respondent No. 1 was not entitled for the salary since January, 2002 but the petitioner was compelled to pay the salary of respondent No. 1 because of the ad interim writ and the contempt proceedings initiated against the petit'oner for which respondent No. 1 was not entitled. Now the writ petition itselt ^as been dismissed. So the petitioner is entitled to get back the amount which was paid by the petitioner because of the interim order.