G.P.Mathur, J. - (1.) This special appeal has been preferred against the order dated 2.12.1999 of a learned single Judge passed in Writ Petition No. 5497 of 1997, Dilawar Ali and 23 others v. State of U. P. and others.
(2.) Sri Arun Tandon learned counsel for the appellant has contended that though the impugned order is an interim order but it has not only granted a relief which could be given only at the stage of final hearing but has also granted such relief which was not even claimed in the writ petition. Sri Fauzdar Rai learned counsel for the contending respondents has supported the order and has submitted that on the facts and circumstances of the case the order is fully Justified.
(3.) In order to appreciate the contentions raised at the bar, it is necessary to reproduce the impugned order which reads as under : "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondents. Since the petitioners are working since 1983 to 1985. therefore, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners for reguiarisation. During the pendency of regularisation. the petitioners shall be paid minimum of the pay scale against the post they are working." In the writ petition, the following reliefs have been claimed by the petitioners : "(i) to issue a writ of mandamus, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the petitioners salary which is being paid to the regular employee in the similar situation since the same became due and continue to pay with admissible benefits till the petitioners are in service. (ii) to issue any such other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. (iii) to award the costs of the petition to the petitioners." The petitioners have not claimed any relief for their regularisation in service in the writ petitions filed by them. However, by the impugned order dated 2.12.1999. a direction has been issued at an interim stage commanding the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for regularisation. In our opinion, no such direction could have been issued in view of the nature and scope of the writ petition and that too by an interim order.;