JUDGMENT :

1. This Intra Court Appeal has been filed questioning the interlocutory order dated 23.3.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ-A No. 2695 of 2022 (Dr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma vs. State of U.P. and 4 others) whereby and whereunder entertaining the writ petition against the termination order dated 6.4.2021 passed by the Vice Chairman Abbs Institute of Technology, Meerut a private educational institution and inviting a response to the writ petition has stayed the termination order dated 6.4.2021 and permitted the writ petitioner/respondent to perform his duty as he was discharging earlier and shall be paid his salary which shall be subject to final outcome.

2. A perusal of the impugned order of the learned Single Judge reveals that while the writ petition has been kept pending by inviting counter and rejoinder affidavits the termination order dated 6.4.2021 passed by the appellant who was arrayed as respondent No.2 in the writ petition has been stayed with further direction permitting the petitioner/respondent to perform his duties and paid salary, the learned Single Judge has virtually granted the final relief to the writ petitioner/respondent.

3. An interim order can be passed by a Court of law only in aid of a final relief prayed for. An interim order ought not to be passed by a Court which is in the nature of a final relief itself. if such an order is passed virtually nothing will remain to be adjudicated at the final hearing stage. In the case at hand the learned Single Judge by staying the termination order and directing for payment of salary to the writ petitioner/respondent has virtually granted the reliefs prayed for in the writ petition which could not have been done at the initial stage. We also find that the termination order is dated 6.4.2021. The writ petition was filed on 20.12.2021 and the interim order staying the termination order was passed on 23.3.2022.

4. The Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. and others vs. Sandeep Kumar Balmiki and others, reported in 2009 (17) SCC 555, while considering the property of granting final relief at the interim stage, made the following observations which is being quoted hereunder:-

"In our view, the interim order granted by the High Court staying the order of termination could not be passed at this stage in view of the fact that if such relief is granted at this stage, the writ petition shall stand automatically allowed without permitting the parties to place their respective cases at the time of final hearing of the writ petition. In this case also, the appellants have not yet filed counter affidavit to the writ petition of the respondents.

That being the position and in view of the fact that the final relief could not be granted at the interim stage, we set aside the impugned order and vacate the interim order passed by the High Court."

5. In Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. vs. Rameshwar Dayal, AIR 1961 SC 689, this Court examined the point as to whether a workman could be ordered to be reinstated as an interim measure pending final adjudication by the Tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act. In the said case the employer dismissed the workman for disobeying the orders of the managing authority. The workman filed an application before the Industrial Tribunal under Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 contesting his dismissal on various grounds, whereupon the Tribunal passed an order to the effect that as an interim measure the workman be permitted to work and if the management failed to take him back his full wages be paid from the date he reported for duty. The employer challenged the order of the Tribunal by filing a writ petition before the High Court which was dismissed. On appeal by a certificate of the High Court it was held that the order of reinstatement could not be given as an interim relief because that would be giving the employee the very relief which he would get if order of dismissal is not found to be justified. Order passed