JUDGMENT I.A. No. 424 of 2013 By Court.-Heard learned counsel for the parties on the application, I.A. No. 424 of 2013, for condonation of delay. For the reasons stated in the application the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The I.A. No. 424 of 2013 is allowed accordingly. L.P.A. No. 4 of 2013 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. For the work contract dated 20th April, 2005 ending in the year 2010, appellant's work contract was terminated in the year 2006, against which the petitioner preferred writ petition, which was dismissed vide order dated 11.9.2012. 3. The appellant's contention is that petitioner was never allowed to work for the rest period after the impugned order dated 25th July, 2006 in spite of the interim order of this Court. However, it was admitted that term of the agreement has already lapsed. The learned single Judge also considered the contention of the petitioner that Rs. five lakhs of the petitioner were due on respondent as per the petitioner, for the period from February, 2006 to June, 2006, for which the petitioner has not raised the bill except bills of three months of February, March and April, 2006. Learned single Judge after holding that the order of cancellation of the contract of the petitioner was non-speaking order and has been passed only in two lines, but since the term of agreement has already lapsed, therefore, learned single Judge observed that there is no need of passing of any specific order for quashing the impugned order. However, the appellant was allowed to file a representation before the Special Executive Officer, Jharkhand Health Society, Namkum with supporting documents within a period of three weeks from the date of passing of the order for redressal of his grievances relating to payment of outstanding dues in terms of the agreement in question with direction to the authorities concerned to consider the same and pass speaking and a reasoned order. 4. The petitioner-appellant aggrieved against the order dated 11.9.2012 has preferred this L.P.A. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that order impugned dated 25th July, 2006 is absolutely illegal and void as it is bad in the eye of law and is a non-speaking order. 4. The petitioner-appellant aggrieved against the order dated 11.9.2012 has preferred this L.P.A. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that order impugned dated 25th July, 2006 is absolutely illegal and void as it is bad in the eye of law and is a non-speaking order. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that learned single Judge also committed grave error of law as there was no reason for not declaring the order 25th July, 2006 illegal on the ground that term of the contract has come to an end. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that petitioner submitted supplementary affidavit before the writ Court and annexed the letters by which he tried to give service to the respondents after interim order passed in the writ petition but that was not honoured by the respondents. 6. We need not to say that mere sending the letters of offering services cannot be treated to be enough in this case particularly when the fact situation is that the Court has passed the interim order staying termination of contract and petitioner then merely sending the letter and petitioner did not move any application before this Court for getting the order of this Court enforced. In that situation petiti6ner should have taken benefit of the interim order by moving appropriate application before the Court. 7. Be that as it may be, facts remain is that term of the contract has already expired. We are of the considered view that the appellant's contention has been taken note by the learned single Judge in the impugned order dated 11th September, 2012 wherein it has been stated by the petitioner-appellant that he was never allowed to work for the rest of the period after impugned interim order dated 25th July, 2006 of this Court. We are of the considered view that the appellant's contention has been taken note by the learned single Judge in the impugned order dated 11th September, 2012 wherein it has been stated by the petitioner-appellant that he was never allowed to work for the rest of the period after impugned interim order dated 25th July, 2006 of this Court. In the peculiar facts and circumstances when petitioner term of contract has come to an end by efflux of time during pendency of the writ petition and the interim order was in favour of the writ petitioner and appellant's own contention is that he did not provide the service under the contract even when Court passed interim order, and petitioner did not avail the benefit for several years then in that situation mere declaration was not necessary and there was no reason for the Court to pass a declaratory order so as to give any fresh cause to the petitioner in equitable writ jurisdiction. The conduct of the petitioner and the equity are also considered for grant of relief in equitable writ jurisdiction. We are of the considered opinion that learned single Judge very carefully entertained the petitioner's claim which was raised by the petitioner and permitted the petitioner to submit his representation with supporting documents for his claim. In this situation, the learned single Judge has rightly decided the matter by taking into account the overall fact situation and not decided the matter academically. Therefore, this L.P.A is dismissed. L.P. Appeal dismissed.