S. S. SODHI, CJ. ( 1 ) A classic instance of an interim order passed by this Court being a windfall is provided here. ( 2 ) THE petitioner Arvind Mishra invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court on the plea that he had been given appointment for a period of 90 days, but his services had been wrongfully terminated before the expiry of this period. ( 3 ) WHEN the matter came up for preliminary hearing on July 11, 1991, being B. M. Lal, J. an interim order was passed by virtue of which the respondents were restrained from interfering with the working of the petitioner as clerk. A direction was also issued that he be paid his remuneration regularly. If, is by virtue of this order that the petitioner has continued in service ever since, that is, for over three and half years. ( 4 ) IT is indeed extraordinary that where the claim was only to the extent that he be permitted to continue in service for 90 days, the petitioner has been directed to be kept in service for such a long period of time. In other words, he has obtained a relief which he was clearly not entitled to. ( 5 ) ON the petitioners own showing, he had been given appointment for only 90 days with effect from April 1991. He complained that his services were terminated before the expiry of this period on May 27, 1991. He. thereupon, field the present writ petition praying that he may be permitted to continue in service to complete the period of his appointment, namely, 90 days. As pointed out earlier, the interim order not only granted him the relief claimed, but far beyond that by enabling him to continue in service for over three and half years. On the face of it, therefore, the petitioner has obtained a wholly unwarranted relief, which he was not clearly entitled to. ( 6 ) WE, therefore, have no hesitation in dismissing this writ petition and we do so Rs. 1,000/- as costs. .