JUDGMENT : A.S. BOPANNA, J. 1. The appellant State is before us in this intra-court appeal assailing the interim direction dated 22.11.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.7707/2018. 2. The private respondents herein are before the learned Single Judge raising several contentions assailing the action of the appellants herein in seeking to superannuate the respondents at the age of 60 years. The contention in the writ petition is that they are entitled to continue upto the age of 65 years as has been provided to certain categories of doctors. In the said writ petition, the respondents herein have also prayed for interim order not to superannuate and relieve them from service pending consideration of the writ petition. The learned Single Judge having notified the respondents, was of the opinion that the interim prayer will be considered on the next returnable date. However, pending consideration of the interim prayer, the learned Single Judge has directed that such of the writ petitioners (except petitioner No.1) who may attain the age of superannuation be allowed to continue. It is indicated that such of those persons will not claim any financial benefits as per submission made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners. Due to such observation in the order, the persons who have attained the age of 60 years have been allowed to continue in service pending consideration of writ petition. It is in that light, appellants are before this Court assailing the order insofar as the direction to continue such of those petitioners beyond the age of superannuation, even before their right as claimed in the writ petition is determined. 3. Heard Mr. D. Saikia, learned Senior Standing Counsel, Health Department for the appellant as well Ms. B.C. Das, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. D.Y. Kaiyum, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the petition papers. 4. In addition to the contention put forth, it is also brought to our notice that similar consideration has arisen before a Coordinate Bench of this Court to which one of us (Justice A.K. Goswami was a member in Writ Appeal No.361/2018). In the said writ appeal, the appellants were before this Court against the rejection of the interim prayer by the learned Single Judge in a matter relating to same issue of the age of superannuation which was pending for determination. In the said writ appeal, the appellants were before this Court against the rejection of the interim prayer by the learned Single Judge in a matter relating to same issue of the age of superannuation which was pending for determination. While considering the contentions therein, the Coordinate Bench has also taken note of the instant impugned order dated 22.11.2018 passed in W.P.(C) No.7707/2018 and, even in that light, was of the opinion that an order to continue the petitioners beyond the date of the superannuation as per the present procedure would not be justified. It is indicated that in such circumstance, the petitioners if they succeed in any event would ultimately be benefited and, therefore, had dismissed the writ appeal. 5. Having taken note of the said order, we are in agreement with such conclusion and, in the instant facts as well, if the respondents herein, who are writ petitioners, ultimately succeed in the writ petition, in any event, they would be entitled to the service benefits. On the other hand, if they are allowed to continue, even though an undertaking is given that they would not claim the financial benefits, it would in any event disturb the hierarchy. Therefore, keeping the above aspects in view, we are of the opinion that the observation of the learned Single Judge in directing the appellants herein to continue all those writ petitioners beyond the date of superannuation would not be justified. The order to that effect is, accordingly, set aside. All other contentions on merit are left open to be urged before the learned Single Judge. The writ appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.