K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner and the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents.
2. The appellant-writ petitioner had approached this Court earlier along with others, by filing W.P.(C).No.22511/2013, claiming that they are entitled to be continued even after the age of superannuation of 58 years. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that he also obtained an interim order in W.P.(C).No.22511/2013, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P1 in W.P.(C).No.10400/2014. However, it is very evident from the letter of the appellant-writ petitioner himself, produced as Ext.P4 that the petitioner had completed the age of 58 years and retired from the service on 30/09/2013 long before the interim order was passed. The appellant-writ petitioner's prayer in the present writ petition, was to permit him to continue to occupy the quarters despite the fact that he was already superannuated.
W.A.No.658/2014 -:2:-
2. The appellant's contention is that as long as the interim order subsists, he is to be permitted to rejoin duty and continued to be employed, as well as permitted continued occupation of the quarters allotted to him; while he was in employment. If the petitioner has any grievance against the non compliance of the interim order, necessarily, he would have to approach the concerned court. In any event, in the present case, the very same learned single Judge, who passed the interim order found that there was absolutely no reason why the appellant-writ petitioner should be allowed to be continued in the quarters. In fact, the learned single Judge noticed that Ext.P1 order directed continuance of the petitioners therein and that does not enure to the benefit of the petitioner, who had already retired. The learned single Judge however permitted continuance in the quarters for a period of one month from 31/03/2014 on equitable considerations. We do not see any ground to interfere with such order made by the learned single Judge or to continue the same any further. In such circumstance, we do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned single Judge. We dismiss the writ appeal without costs.
Sd/-
K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE ms