Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel, J.;— Petitioner has preferred this writ petition for issuance of writ of certiorari to quash the entire proceedings pending before the Workmen Compensation Commissioner/Assistant Labour Commissioner, Gorakhpur. A brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice. Ramdeyee Devi Kanya Inter College, Gorakhpur is a recognised institution. The education is imparted upto the level of intermediate classes. The institution receives aid out of State Fund. The present writ petition has been filed through its Manager Sri Indra Raman Das. It is stated that the respondent no.1 Smt. Bahorana Devi was a Class IV employee in the said institution. She filed an Application under the provisions of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') before the respondent no.2 which came to be registered as WC Case No. 17 of 1985 (Smt. Bahorna Devi v. Managing Committee, Ram Dei Devi Kanya Inter College, Diwan Bazar, Gorakhpur) inter alia on the ground that while she was in the employment of the petitioner she got injured on 10.11.1993 when she was sweeping the Class Room of the said institution. On account of the said injury she became disabled and was declared unfit for performing the job. She claimed Rs.40,000/- as a compensation for her disablement. The proceedings for the compensation in the court of Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Gorakhpur is pending since the year 1985. The petitioner, committee of management had filed their written submissions and issues were framed. The petitioner committee of management had filed an application before the Tribunal raising certain objections that the institution is not an industry and as such provisions of the 'Act' will not be applicable. Certain other plea were also raised by the management. The respondent no.2 rejected the said application on 28.1.1994 on the ground that on similar facts objection were raised by the employer/petitioner herein in their application. The said application was also rejected on 4.7.1986 and 23.8.1988 by the predecessor of respondent no.2 and those orders were not challenged by the petitioner nor any application was moved for recall of those orders. It has also recorded that the petitioner is adopting dilatory tactics as several adjournment has been repeatedly sought on their behalf. Thus the application dated 20th August, 1993 was rejected. In the present writ petition the order dated 28.1.1994 has not been challenged. It has also recorded that the petitioner is adopting dilatory tactics as several adjournment has been repeatedly sought on their behalf. Thus the application dated 20th August, 1993 was rejected. In the present writ petition the order dated 28.1.1994 has not been challenged. The prayer of the writ petition reads a under:- "It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue:- A. a writ of certiorari quashing the entire proceedings pending before the opposite party no.2 in Case No. 17 of 1985 (Smt. Bahorana Devi vs. Managing Committee). B. a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite party no.2 not to proceed further with the hearing of Case No. 17 of 1985 and decide the issue of jurisdiction and maintainability of the petitioner as Preliminary issue. C. any other suitable writ, direction or order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the fats and circumstances of the case be issued in favour of the petitioner. D. Costs of the writ petition be awarded to the petitioner." Learned counsel for the respondent no. 1, submits that it is not disputed that respondent no. 1 was in the employment of the petitioner. She has filed an application under the provisions of the Act and the petitioner participated in the said proceedings by filing written submissions on merit of the case and from the record it is evident that the said proceedings was pending since the year 1985 and various applications of the petitioner were dismissed by the respondent no.2 herein. However, those orders were not challenged by the petitioner. The question of jurisdiction has been challenged at a belated stage while the proceedings is still pending. The respondent no.1 filed various documentary evidence including the statement of the Doctor who had treated her. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no.1 alongwith the Stay Vacation application. No rejoinder affidavit on the record. It stand recorded in the order sheet dated 30.11.1995 that no rejoinder affidavit has been filed even after long lapse of time and further three weeks time was granted. However, petitioners have not filed the rejoinder affidavit. The matter was adjourned on two occasions at the request of learned counsel for the petitioner on 20.2.2013 and 28.2.2013. It stand recorded in the order sheet dated 30.11.1995 that no rejoinder affidavit has been filed even after long lapse of time and further three weeks time was granted. However, petitioners have not filed the rejoinder affidavit. The matter was adjourned on two occasions at the request of learned counsel for the petitioner on 20.2.2013 and 28.2.2013. It is stated that the respondent no.1 was a Class IV employee and the petitioner instead of contesting the matter on merit has dragged unnecessarily the respondent no.1 before this Court and kept this writ petition pending since the year 1994. From the record it is also evident that after obtaining interim order no steps have been taken by the petitioner to get the writ petition decided. A counter affidavit alongwith the Stay Vacation Application was served on learned counsel for the petitioner on 3rd August,1994. The petitioner preferred not to file any rejoinder affidavit even after lapse of 18 years. Having regard to facts and circumstances of this case I am of the view that the present writ petition is abuse of the process of law as the respondent no.1 who stood retired way back has been harassed and her claim petition could not be decided on merit due to interim order obtained by the petitioner in the year 1994. The Supreme Court has taken a serious view in these type of matters where the petitioner after obtaining interim order get unfair advantage by keeping the matter pending for long time. Even after dismissal of writ petition they retain the benefit of interim order. In such facts the Supreme Court has taken the view that unfair advantage gained by a party by an interim order must be neutralized. The Supreme Court in Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, (2011) 8 SCC 161 , at page 245 held as under: "188. In a relatively recent judgment of this Court in Amarjeet Singh v. Devi Ratan the Court in para 17 of the judgment observed as under: (SCC pp. 422-23): (2010) 1 SCC 417 . "17. No litigant can derive any benefit from mere pendency of case in a court of law, as the interim order always merges in the final order to be passed in the case and if the writ petition is ultimately dismissed, the interim order stands nullified automatically. 422-23): (2010) 1 SCC 417 . "17. No litigant can derive any benefit from mere pendency of case in a court of law, as the interim order always merges in the final order to be passed in the case and if the writ petition is ultimately dismissed, the interim order stands nullified automatically. A party cannot be allowed to take any benefit of its own wrongs by getting an interim order and thereafter blame the court. The fact that the writ is found, ultimately, devoid of any merit, shows that a frivolous writ petition had been filed. The maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit, which means that the act of the court shall prejudice no one, becomes applicable in such a case. In such a fact situation the court is under an obligation to undo the wrong done to a party by the act of the court. Thus, any undeserved or unfair advantage gained by a party invoking the jurisdiction of the court must be neutralised, as the institution of litigation cannot be permitted to confer any advantage on a suitor from delayed action by the act of the court." The Supreme Court took the view that cost should also be imposed in such circumstances. The Court referred its decision in Ramrameshwari Devi V. Nirmala Devi (2011) 8 SCC 249 . The relevant part of the judgment reads as under :- "54.While imposing costs we have to take into consideration pragmatic realities and be realistic as to what the defendants or the respondents had to actually incur in contesting the litigation before different courts. We have to also broadly take into consideration the prevalent fee structure of the lawyers and other miscellaneous expenses which have to be incurred towards drafting and filing of the counter affidavit, miscellaneous charges towards typing, photocopying, court fee, etc. 55. The other factor which should not be forgotten while imposing costs is for how long the defendants or respondents were compelled to contest and defend the litigation in various courts. The appellants in the instant case have harassed the respondents to the hilt of four decades in a totally frivolous and dishonest litigation in various courts. 55. The other factor which should not be forgotten while imposing costs is for how long the defendants or respondents were compelled to contest and defend the litigation in various courts. The appellants in the instant case have harassed the respondents to the hilt of four decades in a totally frivolous and dishonest litigation in various courts. The appellants have also wasted judicial time of the various courts for the last 40 years." Bearing in mind the aforesaid principles laid down by the Supreme Court, in my view end of justice would be sub-served if the petitioner is directed to pay a cost of Rs.50,000/- to the respondent no.1 herein/legal heir of respondent no.1 within three months from the date of communication of this order. If the cost is not paid by the management, the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur is directed to recover the amount of Rs.50,000/- as arrears of land revenue from the Management of the Ramdeyee Devi Kanya Inter College, Gorakhpur and the same would be paid to the respondent no.1 herein/legal heir of respondent no.1. The District Magistrate shall intimate the compliance to the Registrar General of this Court who shall place the said intimation on the record of this case. Let a copy of this order be supplied to the learned Standing counsel Sri J.K.Tewari, free of cost to communicate this order to the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur. A direction is also issued upon the respondent no.2 herein to decide the WC Case No. 17 of 1985 (Smt. Bahorna Devi v. Managing Committee, Ram Dei Devi Kanya Inter College, Diwan Bazar, Gorakhpur) as expeditiously as possible but not later than six months from the date of communication of this order. The writ petition lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Interim order is vacated. No order as to costs. _____________