ORDER By the Court.–The petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashing of order dated 12.8.2011 by which the salary of the petitioner was reduced and the petitioner was reverted from the post of Computer Assistant to the post of Computer Operator and his salary has been reduced from Rs. 13,500/- with allowances to Rs. 5,500/- per month. 2. The respondent No. 2 has filed counter-affidavit in the matter. 3. The petitioner has filed supplementary affidavit dated 12.2.2013 bringing on record Resolution dated 25.3.2009. The petitioner has also filed rejoinder affidavit to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.2. Now, the petitioner has filed an interlocutory application being I.A. No. 5187 of 2013 seeking implementation of the Government Circular/Resolution dated 29.5.2013 whereby the monetary benefit to the contractual employee working in the secretariat and other offices, has been enhanced. 4. A perusal of the said Resolution dated 29.5.2013 would disclose that the decision to increase the monetary benefit has been made applicable w.e.f. 1.4.2013. 5. On a pointed query to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, how a direction can be given by the Court to an authority for implementing the Resolution dated 29.5.2013 in case of the petitioner, by filing an application in the writ petition the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that he has a right to get the Resolution implemented and therefore, such a right can be enforced by filing an interlocutory application in the writ petition. 6. On perusal of the documents on record, I find that the petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing order dated 12.8.2011 whereby the salary of the petitioner was reduced and the petitioner was reverted from the post of Computer Assistant to the post of Computer Operator. In the interlocutory application the petitioner has sought a direction for implementation of Resolution dated 29.5.2013 which is applicable for employees working in the Secretariat and other attached offices. I am of the view that the prayer made in the writ petition is entirely different from the prayer made in the interlocutory application. Decision of the Government as contained in Resolution dated 29.5.2009 has been made applicable w.e.f. 1.4.2013. The petitioner is not working in the Secretariat or other attached offices. He was employed in the Board. I am of the view that the prayer made in the writ petition is entirely different from the prayer made in the interlocutory application. Decision of the Government as contained in Resolution dated 29.5.2009 has been made applicable w.e.f. 1.4.2013. The petitioner is not working in the Secretariat or other attached offices. He was employed in the Board. The Court has no power to direct the respondent-authority to make the Government decision applicable in case of the petitioner and that too with retrospective effect. 7. Moreover, I find that by filing an application in the main writ petition the petitioner could not have sought a direction from the Court to the respondents for implementing the decision as contained in Resolution dated 29.5.2013. From the facts as disclosed in the writ petition and in the interlocutory application, I find that the said Resolution has been made applicable w.e.f. 1.4.2013 whereas, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashing of order dated 12.8.2011 and therefore, there is no resemblance in the prayer made in the writ petition and interlocutory application. 8. In view of the above, interlocutory application No. 5187 of 2013 is hereby rejected. 9. Call the matter after two weeks under the appropriate heading. I.A. rejected.