ORDER : 1. Leave granted. 2. The short question which arises for our consideration in this appeal is whether the interim direction issued by the Division Bench on 8-12-1997 to the effect that the "respondent would not be retired till further orders from this Court" can be permitted to continue during the pendency of the letters patent appeal. We are informed that arguments have been heard but the judgment in the letters patent appeal has not so far been delivered. 3. The learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition directed the consideration of the case of the respondent for promotion by a Special Selection Board. That was done. The Division Bench directed the decision to be taken by the Special Selection Board within two weeks. We are informed that even that was done and the court informed about the decision of the Special Selection Board. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and examining the record, we are of the opinion that the impugned direction was not justified. The respondent would have retired from service in November 1997 but by virtue of the direction has been permitted to continue in service. It was not proper. A direction like the impugned one in this case is not normally to be granted at the interim stage because in the event the employee succeeds in his case, he can always be granted relief even for the period during which he was out of service. We, therefore, without prejudice to the rights of the parties in the letters patent appeal, set aside the impugned direction, as noticed above. 5. The appeal is allowed. No costs. Appeal allowed.