JUDGMENT : Both the special appeals are filed by the appellant Rajasthan State Mines & Minerals Limited, Udaipur to challenge the common judgment dated 24.1.2014 passed in SBCWP Nos. 1998/2012 and 4871/2011 filed by the respondent Sanjay Kumar. 2. As per the facts of the case, the respondent-petitioner was working as Assistant Manager (Marketing) in the office of respondents and he applied for voluntary retirement from service w.e.f. 30.4.2009 as he joined some job in the USA. The appellant company sent communication dated 3.12.2009 to the respondent Sanjay Kumar and informed that his VRS application has not been accepted. Therefore, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said communication, Sanjay Kumar preferred writ petition before this Court and same was registered as SBCWP No. 4871/2011. 3. During the pendency of above writ petition, the appellant RSMML initiated disciplinary action against the petitioner. Against that action, the petitioner again approached this Court by way of filing SBCWP No. 1998/2012. 4. The learned Single Judge heard both the writ petitions and decided both the writ petitions by common order, which are impugned in both the special appeals. The learned Single Judge after hearing both the parties passed the following order, which reads as under:- "5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that he communication (Annex. 10) dated 03.12.2009 cannot amount to the rejection of VRS application as it clearly states that the competent authority has not considered the application for grant of VRS. It means that the VRS application has not been rejected on any cogent ground after giving of opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Therefore, in view of the fact that the petitioner is not inclined to join back the services of the respondent, and is already serving at USA, and is said to have settled there, it is considered appropriate that the respondent, RSMML should re-consider the application for VRS of the petitioner objectively and fairly; and the said application for VRS be accepted by them even now and his retiral dues may also be released as computed by the respondents themselves vide Annex. 11, referred above, of Rs. 8,14,204/-. The aforesaid sum, however, will not carry any interest and the respondents may pay the said sum within a period of six months from today. 6. It is ordered accordingly and the writ petitions are disposed of. No costs. 11, referred above, of Rs. 8,14,204/-. The aforesaid sum, however, will not carry any interest and the respondents may pay the said sum within a period of six months from today. 6. It is ordered accordingly and the writ petitions are disposed of. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned parties forthwith." 5. The Division Bench of this Court while hearing D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 715/2014 passed the following order on 4.8.2014, which reads as under:- "Mr. Rahul Kotwal, Dy. Manager (P & A), RSMML, appears in person on behalf of appellants-Rajasthan State Mines & Minerals Ltd. This special appeal is directed against the judgment dated 24.01.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge directing the respondents, who are appellants before us, to reconsider the application of Mr. Sanjay Kumar, the petitioner before the learned Single Judge, for voluntary retirement objectively and fairly. Having passed the said order, the learned Single Judge directed thus; "The application for VRS be accepted by them even now and his retiral dues may also be released as computed by the respondents themselves vide Annex. 11, referred above, of Rs. 8,14,204/-. The aforesaid sum, however, will not carry any interest and respondent may pay the said sum within a period of six months from today." It is submitted that the directions issued by the learned Single Judge are contradictory in terms inasmuch as after giving a direction to the respondent to consider the application for VRS objectively and fairly, no further directions should have been given to accept the application, and to pay computed amount of retiral dues. Prima facie, we are of the view that after having issued directions for consideration of the application for VRS objectively and fairly, learned Single Judge should not have given any direction to accept the application and to release amount which was computed by the corporation. Issue notice to the respondents. Steps may be taken within a week. The notices are made returnable within six weeks. Until further orders, the effect and operation of the judgment dated 24.01.2014 issuing directions for VRS shall remain stayed. The respondent will however carry out first part of the directions of learned Single Judge, namely to consider the application for VRS objectively and fairly and take a decision in this regard within six weeks. Until further orders, the effect and operation of the judgment dated 24.01.2014 issuing directions for VRS shall remain stayed. The respondent will however carry out first part of the directions of learned Single Judge, namely to consider the application for VRS objectively and fairly and take a decision in this regard within six weeks. The decision taken by the appellant will be communicated to the respondent, and will be filed along with supplementary affidavit." 6. In compliance of aforesaid order, the case of the petitioner was considered for voluntary retirement as ordered by this Court and order Annex. A/7 was passed on 5.9.2014 whereby the prayer of the petitioner for acceptance of VRS has been rejected. 7. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that in view of aforesaid order dated 5.9.2014 now the respondent Sanjay Kumar is not entitled for any relief as granted by the learned Single Judge because now fresh cause of action has arisen after passing of the order dated 5.9.2014. Therefore, the impugned order of both the special appeal may be quashed. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent-petitioner submits that order dated 5.9.2014 which is passed in compliance of the order dated 4.8.2014 is not sustainable in law because it has been passed without application of mind and considering the prayer of the petitioner for acceptance of VRS objectively. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that coordinate bench passed an order on 4.8.2014 whereby the effect and operation of the judgment impugned dated 14.1.2014 issuing directions for VRS was stayed. The respondents were directed to carry out the first part of the directions of the learned Single Judge, namely, to consider the application for VRS objectively and fairly and to take decision in this regard within six weeks. Meaning thereby, now fresh order has been passed in compliance of the interim order passed by this Court, therefore, the order of the learned Single Judge is not sustainable in view of the fact that a fresh cause of action is arisen due to rejection of application of petitioner for VRS vide order dated 5.9.2014. 10. Meaning thereby, now fresh order has been passed in compliance of the interim order passed by this Court, therefore, the order of the learned Single Judge is not sustainable in view of the fact that a fresh cause of action is arisen due to rejection of application of petitioner for VRS vide order dated 5.9.2014. 10. Therefore, both the appeals are hereby allowed and the order dated 24.1.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge is hereby quashed and set aside with liberty to the respondent-petitioner to challenge the order dated 5.9.2014 for redressal of his grievance of not accepting the prayer for VRS and disciplinary action.