M. Katju and R. S. Tripathi, JJ.—Heard Sri Ajit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri A. N. Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. It appears that the respondents were appointed on purely temporary capacity on the post of Safai Mazdoor in the service of Nagar Palika Parishad, Mohammadabad, district Ghazipur as daily wagers. They were disengaged in the year 2000.

3. By the impugned interim order dated 9.4.2004 the learned single Judge has directed that the writ petitioners are entitled to work and shall get salaries. It is well-settled that by an interim order the final relief cannot be granted vide Union of India v. Modiluft Ltd., 2003 (4) AWC 2796.

4. In U. P. Junior Doctors Action Committee v. Dr. D. Sheetal Nanda, 1992 (Supp) 1 SCC 680, the Supreme Court observed :

“It is well known rule of practice and procedure that at the interlocutory stage a relief which is asked for and is available at the disposal of the matter is not granted.”

5. This view has been followed by the Division Bench decision of this Court in State of U. P. and others v. Km. Renu Tiwari and others, 1993 (2) UPLBEC 1325.

6. By the impugned interim order dated 9.4.2004