- (1.) The Petitioners are seeking a mandamus commanding the Respondents to allow them to continue in service and regularise them.
(2.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioners contended that though they have continued pursuant to interim order dated 28.6.1993 passed by this Court yet since subsequently Regularisation Rules have been framed and they are entitled to be considered for regularisation there under hence their continuous service till date is liable to be taken into consideration to consider whether they have a right for regularisation or not.
(3.) The submission is thoroughly misconceived. Admittedly, the Petitioners were disengaged from their daily wage muster role employment by means of the impugned order. Counsel for the Petitioners could not make any submission to assail the said order of termination. The order of termination was made ineffective by means of the interim order passed by this Court. Meaning thereby continuance of Petitioners in service is not based on their own rights but pursuant to this Court's order. The law is well settled in this regard that act of Court shall prejudice none and anything which has been done pursuant to interim, order shall depend on the final result of the writ petition. In case the writ petition fails it will result as if no interim order was ever passed. This issue has been considered by a Division Bench of this Court (in which I was also a member) in Smt. Vijay Rani v. Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools, Region-1, Meerut and Ors., 2007 2 ESC 987 and the Court held as under: An interim order passed by the Court merges with the final order and, therefore, the result brought by dismissal of the writ petition is that the interim order becomes non est. A Division Bench of this Court in Shyam Lal v. State of U.P., 1968 AIR(All) 139 while considering the effect of dismissal of writ petition on interim order passed by the Court has laid down as under: It is well settled that an interim order merges in the final order and does not exist by itself. So the result brought about by an interim order would be non est in the eye of law if the final order grants no relief. The grant of interim relief when the petition was ultimately dismissed could not have the effect to postponing implementation of the order of compulsory retirement. It must in the circumstances take effect as if there was no interim order. The same principal has been reiterated in the following cases: (A) Sri Ram Charan Das v. Pyare Lal, 1975 AIR(All) 280 In Shyam Lal v. State of U.P., 1968 AIR(All) 139 a Bench of this Court has held that orders of stay of injunction are interim orders that merge in final orders passed in the proceedings. The result brought about by the interim order becomes non est in the eye of law in final order grants no relief. In this view of the matter it seems to us that the interim stay became non est and lost all the efficacy, the commissioner having upheld the permission which became effective from the date it was passed. (B) Shyam Manohar Shukla v. State of U.P. . It is settled law that an interim order passed in a case which is ultimately dismissed is to be treated as not having been passed at all (see Shyam Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1968 AIR(All) 139 ) Lucknow and Sri Ram Charan Das v. Pyare Lal., 1975 AIR(All) 280 (C) Kanoria Chemicals & Industries Ltd. v. U.P. State Electricity Board., 1994 AIR(All) 273 After the dismissal of the writ petitions wherein notification dated 21.4.1990 was stayed, the result brought about by the interim orders staying the notification, became non est in the eye of law and lost all its efficacy and the notification became effective from the beginning.;