Hon’ble Devendra Pratap Singh, J.—An important issue, which is often confronting courts, falls for determination by this Full Bench. An employee, continues in service, beyond the superannuation age of 58 years on the strength of an interim order, is fastened with deduction of the amounts paid as salary from his retiral benefits on the dismissal of the writ petition as infructuous.

2. A learned Single Judge of this Court was confronted with the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Harendra Kunwar, [1995 A.L.J. 1603] and State of J&K v. Pirzada Ghulam Nabi, [(1998) 8 SCC 102] where it was held that an incumbent who has continued in service beyond the age of superannuation on the strength of an interim order, may not be entitled to retain or receive salary in case the writ petition is ultimately dismissed either on merits or as infructuous. And the contrary view also of the Apex Court in the case of Collector of Madras and another v. K. Rajamanickam, [1995 (2) SCC 98] and Burn Standard Company Limited and others v. Deen Bandhu Majumdar and others, (1995) 4 SCC 172 both followed by a learned Single Judge of our Court in Ram Khelawan Pathak v. State of U.P.