ORDER : ABHILASHA KUMARI, J. 1. This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the interim order dated 10-8-2001 passed by the Gujarat Universities Services Tribunal (Tribunal' for short), passed in Application No. 24 of 2000. 2. The petitioner is the Gujarat University, which is aggrieved by the following operative order passed by the Tribunal: "16. In that case of the circumstances, in view of the observations made in this order, by way of interim relief, opponent No. 2 is hereby directed not to restrain applicant to sign the muster roll and to discharge his duty, which he was discharging before filing of this application during the period of 24-11-2000 to 4-1-2001. Opponents are hereby further directed to pay him remuneration, which has paid to him earlier or such. Which is revised from time to time and in force." 3. Briefly stated, the relevant facts of the case are that respondent No. 1 has filed the above-mentioned application before the Tribunal, praying for equal pay for equal work' and for directions to treat him as being a permanent employee of the Gujarat University. By way of interim relief, respondent No. 1 has prayed that the University may be directed to permit him to sign the muster roll and to discharge duties that were being discharged by him, and to pay him salary regularly. 4. Aggrieved by the grant of interim relief by the Tribunal, as above, the petitioner-University has approached this Court by filing the present petition. 5. Mr. S.N. Shelat, learned Senior Advocate with Mrs. V.D. Nanavati, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that by granting the interim relief, the Tribunal has more or less granted final relief to respondent No. 1, which is not permissible in law. It is further submitted that this Court, while admitting the petition, has confirmed the interim order staying the impugned order of the Tribunal. However, the application is not being heard by the Tribunal due to the pendency of the present petition, therefore, the petition may be disposed of, by continuing the interim relief granted by this Court, till the final hearing of the application by the Tribunal. 6. Mr. J.J. Yajnik, learned advocate for respondent No. 1 has submitted that appropriate orders may be passed in view of the fact that the interim relief granted by this Court has continued ever since 8-10-2001. 7. 6. Mr. J.J. Yajnik, learned advocate for respondent No. 1 has submitted that appropriate orders may be passed in view of the fact that the interim relief granted by this Court has continued ever since 8-10-2001. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and in view of the fact that the application before the Tribunal has been filed in the year 2000 and that the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 10-8-2001 has been stayed by order dated 8-10-2001, the interest of justice would be met, if the petition is disposed of by continuing the interim order granted by this Court, till such time as the Tribunal decides the application. No objection to this course of action is forthcoming from the learned counsel for the respective parties. Looking to the merits of the case, it does appear that by the impugned order, the Tribunal has more or less granted the main relief to respondent No. 1, which is not permissible in law. In addition thereto, the pendency of the petition before this Court has resulted in a situation where the application before the Tribunal is still pending. This is so in spite of order dated 25-10-2001 of this Court whereby, while issuing Rule, it has been clarified that the pendency of the petition would not come in the way of the Tribunal in deciding the application on merits, and that the Tribunal shall decide the application without being influenced by the order of this Court. 8. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the following order is passed : (a) The interim order dated 8-10-2001 as confirmed by order dated 25-10-2001 shall remain in operation, till such time as the Tribunal decides the application. (b) The Tribunal is directed to decide the application as expeditiously as possible, considering that it has been filed in the year 2000. 9. The petition is partly allowed, as above. Rule is made absolute to the above extent. There shall be no orders as to cost. Petition partly allowed.