C. K. THAKKER, J. ( 1 ) RULE. Mr. Bambhania appears and waives service of rule on behalf of respondents. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the matter is taken up for hearing today. ( 2 ) MR. Bambhania states that an affidavit-in-reply was tendered in the Court. It appears that it is missing. Hence, a copy thereof is taken on record. ( 3 ) THIS petition is filed by the petitioner for quashing and setting aside orders dated 17/02/ 19/05/1992//05/ 14, 19/08/1992//08/ 11, 1992, by which the respondents directed the petitioner to restore the benefits received by him under interim orders of the Court. A direction is sought against the respondents to fix the pension of the petitioner on the basis that he continued in service upto 31/03/1989, and to grant benefits and all other advantages. A prayer is also made to order the respondent-authorities to pay amount due and payable to the petitioner with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. ( 4 ) THE case of the petitioner is that he was serving as Forester. A notice/order was issued by which he was compulsorily retired on 21/03/1986. The petitioner challenged the said notice/order, by filing a suit in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior division), Godhra, being Regular Civil Suit No. 452 of 1996, and obtained ex parte status quo order. However, after hearing the parties, status quo came to be vacated. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred Misc. Appeal No. 133 of 1986. The appellate Court granted status quo, on condition that the plaintiff files an undertaking in that Court that he would refund additional salary minus pension he is entitled to receive in case he fails in the suit. The order read as under :- ". . . . . . . . . . 1. The appeal is partly allowed. 2. The parties be directed to maintain status quo on condition that the plaintiff files undertaking in this Court that he shall refund the additional salaries minus the pension he is entitled to receive if he fails in this suit. The learned trial Judge shall dispose of this suit within six months from the date of receipt of this order. There shall be no order as to costs when appeal is partly allowed. . . . . The learned trial Judge shall dispose of this suit within six months from the date of receipt of this order. There shall be no order as to costs when appeal is partly allowed. . . . . " ( 5 ) THOUGH an interim relief was granted on condition that the petitioner files an undertaking, it appears that the petitioner had not complied with that order. It is stated in the petition that the petitioner filed an undertaking only on the last day of his retirement, i. e. , on 31st of March, 1989. Now, he has come forward with prayer that he should be extended all benefits on the basis of his retirement. It is his case that he had withdrawn the suit on 16/06/1992. ( 6 ) PURSUANT to the notice issued by this Court, the respondents appeared and an affidavit-in-reply is filed on behalf of respondent No. 2. In paragraph 4, it was stated that conditional status quo was granted on filing undertaking by the plaintiff that he would refund the additional amount in case of failure in the suit. He, however, did not comply with the order, by making necessary payment in accordance with the order passed by the lower appellate Court. In paragraph 5, it was stated as under :-". . . . . 5. With reference to para 1 to 7 I say and submit that the contentions are illfounded and misconceived. It is submitted that if the orders of the competent Court are obtained, it should be respected in true spirit by both the parties. It is further submitted that the petitioner gave an undertaking to the authorities pursuant to orders passed by the Honble Court exercising the appellate jurisdiction. The petitioner cannot approbate and reprobate after obtaining the orders from the Honble Court as the petitioner has been continued on duty on the basis of the orders passed by the honble appellate Court and in that view of the matter the contentions of para 7 are misconceived and deponent denies the same. With reference to further contention as to restoration of the Civil suit and order passed the deponent relies on true facts disclosed in the order passed by the Honble Court. With reference to further contention as to restoration of the Civil suit and order passed the deponent relies on true facts disclosed in the order passed by the Honble Court. However, it is submitted that if the petitioner has withdrawn the suit or if he has filed the purshis not to prosecute remedy further it is his own decision and not the decision of the Government authority and or direction from the Government authority to withdraw the proceedings and in that view of the matter the petitioner is duty bound to refund the dues to the government on the basis of undertaking given by the petitioner himself. . . . . . . . . . . . . . " ( 7 ) IT was stated in affidavit-in-reply that the petitioner was duty bound to respect the order of the Court and undertaking which was to be filed by him. He was bound by the said undertaking. He cannot take undue advantage of the order of the Court by getting status quo extended and/or continued and by not paying the amount when the suit was withdrawn by him. ( 8 ) IN my opinion, the respondents are right in submitting that the petitioner is bound to restore the benefit obtained by him in pursuance of the order passed by the appellate Court. In C. I. T. , Madras v. Vinod Kumar, AIR 1987 SC 1260 , certain prohibitory orders were issued against the assessee. He filed a writ petition, challenging the validity of those orders and obtained mandatory relief and removed goods. He then withdrew the petition. Holding the action as abuse of process of law and directing the petitioner to restore undeserved benefits, the Supreme Court observed :-". . . . . . . . The learned Attorney General appearing on behalf of the Deputy Director of Inspection submitted before us that the amount representing the value of the goods removed from the three godowns should be restituted by the 1st respondent since the goods were removed by him under an ex parte order of injunction obtained from the high Court of Calcutta in the writ petition filed by him and the nefarious purpose of filing the writ petition having been accomplished by removal of the goods, the writ petition was withdrawn. There is great force in his submission of the learned attorney General. There is great force in his submission of the learned attorney General. There is no doubt that the 1st respondent has abused the process of the Court for securing removal of the goods from the three godowns and he cannot be allowed to retain that advantage. . . . . . . . . " ( 9 ) IN my opinion, the ratio laid down in Vinod Kumars case ( AIR 1987 SC 1260 ) squarely applies to the facts of the present case. The petitioner has also taken undue advantage of the order of the appellate Court of grant of status quo on undertaking being filed. He did not comply with that order and no undertaking was filed. Therefore, when he reached the age of superannuation, he withdrew the suit. He cannot be permitted to retain benefit to which he is not otherwise entitled. Since he withdrew the suit, interim order granted by the Court in his favour stood automatically vacated. The petitioner cannot claim any benefit on the basis of interim order. ( 10 ) IT, however, appears from the record that initially status quo was granted on 26/06/1986, which was vacated on 26/08/1986. Appeal was allowed by the appellate Court on 23/12/1987 and status quo was ordered to be maintained on filing undertaking by the petitioner. In the peculiar facts and circumstances, I direct the respondent authorities not to recover salary paid to the petitioner upto that date, i. e. upto 23/12/1987, but the respondent can recover additional salary paid to the petitioner under the interim order of the Court with effect from that date and to take all consequential actions. ( 11 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the petition is partly allowed. Rule is made absolute accordingly. There will be no order as to costs .