JUDGMENT 1. - Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the non-petitioner. 2. The only question which arises for decision in this writ petition is whether the order dated 16-3-89 (Annex.2) by which the services of the petitioner were terminated with effect from the afternoon of 16th March, 1989, is in contravention or the interim order issued by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 682 of 1989, Moinuddin Agwan v. The Project Director and another , and if so, what relief should be granted to the petitioner. 3. It is not disputed that the petitioner filed D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 682/89 (which has been converted into S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 682/89) in this Court seeking a direction to the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner or to place him on permanent footing and to pay him regular pay scale applicable to Lower Division Clerks and to make Rules/Regulations/Norms for regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of the employees working in the Integrated Guinea Worm Eradication Project or to adopt the Work-charged Service Rules, 1964. The petitioner also filed D. B. Civil Misc. Stay Petition No. 629/89 seeking a direction to the respondents not to terminate the service of the petitioner after 17-3-89. A Division Bench of this Court on 9-3-89 passed an interim order in the following words : "Meanwhile, services of the petitioner shall not be terminated, if any person junior to him, is retained in service." 4. The petitioner's case is that by the impugned order dated 16-3-89 his service has been terminated in contravention of the interim order dated 9-3-89 passed by this Court, inasmuch as persons junior to the petitioner have been retained on the post of Lower Division Clerk and the petitioner's services have been terminated. In para No. 7, it is alleged by the petitioner that Shri Vinod Sharma and Miss Navratan Chouhan are juniors to him and they were allowed to continue as Clerks, whereas his services has been terminated. In para No. 7 it is also alleged that a number of persons junior to the petitioner are still continuing in the respondents' establishment and two persons namely Mahesh Chandra Ameta and Dilip Lodha, who were juniors to the petitioner are still in the employment. 5. In para No. 7 it is also alleged that a number of persons junior to the petitioner are still continuing in the respondents' establishment and two persons namely Mahesh Chandra Ameta and Dilip Lodha, who were juniors to the petitioner are still in the employment. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents has denied the allegation that any person junior to the petitioner was allowed to continue on the post of Lower Division Clerk after the termination of the petitioner with effect from the afternoon of 16-3-89. In para No. 6 of the reply filed by the respondents, it is stated that no person junior to the petitioner is in service on the regular post of Lower Division Clerks in the office. Regarding Vinod Sharma and Miss Navaratan Chouhan, it is stated in para No. 7 of the reply that Vinod Sharma and Miss Navaratan Chouhan are not working on the regular post of Lower Division Clerk in the Project. The respondents have further pleaded in the reply that the petitioner has been working in the Hindustan Zinc, Zawer Mines, which is a Division of a Government of India undertaking. 6. In the instat case, the petitioner challenged the order dated 16-3-89 (Annex. 2) on the ground that several persons, who were junior to the petitioner were allowed to continue on the post of Lower Division Clerk after the afternoon of 16-3-89, and fore, the services of the petitioner could not be terminated in view of the interim order dated 9-3-89 issued by a Division Bench of this Court. The petitioner has given the names of four persons, who according to him were juniors to him. These are:- (1) Shri Vinod Sharma, (2) Miss Navaratan Chouhan, (3) Mahesh Chandra Ameta, and (4) Dilip Lodha. Order Annexure-2 clearly shows that the services of Vinod Sharma and Navratan Chouhan were terminated along with the services of the petitioner with effect from the afternoon of 16-3-89. Hence, the allegation that by the impugned order the services of Shri Vinod Sharma and Miss Navratan Chouhan were not terminated, does not appear to be correct. So far as the services of Shri Mahesh Chandra Ameta and Dilip Lodha are concerned, the petitioner has not cared to file any document to show that these persons are junior to him. Hence, the allegation that by the impugned order the services of Shri Vinod Sharma and Miss Navratan Chouhan were not terminated, does not appear to be correct. So far as the services of Shri Mahesh Chandra Ameta and Dilip Lodha are concerned, the petitioner has not cared to file any document to show that these persons are junior to him. In these circumstances, the allegation that the impugned order dated 16-3-89 (Annex.2) was passed by the respondents in contravention of the interim order dated 9-3-89 issued by a Division Bench of this Court, does not appear to be well founded. I, fore, find no force in the petition. It deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******