1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4774 OF 2008 (Union of India & Ors. vs. Shamrao Damdu Talwade) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & F.M. REIS, JJ. AUGUST 03, 2009. Heard Shri Sundaram, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Parkhi, learned counsel for the respondent. The challenge by the petitioner – employer is to the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 8.1.2008. The present respondent had challenged his termination by order dated 30.6.2003 and it appears that he also made grievance about the order dated 25.9.2004 in that Original Application. It is an admitted position that the termination vide order dated 30.06.2003 was withdrawn by the employer. The validity or otherwise of the order dated 25.9.2004 is not considered by the CAT and perusal of copy of said order clearly shows that it was on account of abolition of post of Gramin Dak Sevak. Shri Parkhi, learned counsel for the respondent has invited our attention to para 5 to state that the order dated 25.9.2004 is considered there. 2 We find that the said para in one line only mentions the order and also states that it was unceremonious relieving of the applicant. The fact that the order was on account of abolition of post or then whether there was any abolition of post or not is not appreciated by the CAT at all. Shri Parkhi, learned counsel wants to address us to point out that after the termination of the respondent, the post was occupied by some other person. We find that CAT has not considered such subsequent employment. In the circumstances, we are not in a position to maintain the order impugned in this writ petition. We, therefore, quash and set aside the same and restore Original Application No. 2249 of 2004 for its fresh consideration in accordance with law before the CAT. As the matter is being sent back, it is expected that the CAT shall decide it as early as possible and in any case by 31st December 2009. This Court has by interim orders restrained the petitioners from filling in the post allegedly occupied by the present Respondent No.1. In the circumstances, we continue that interim order till 31st December 2009. Writ Petition is disposed of. Rule accordingly. No order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE *GS.