CWP No. 202 of 2004 and CWP No. 332 of 2004. 7.9.2009 Present: Mr. Ajay Mohan Goel counsel for the petitioners in CWP No. 202 of 2004 and for respondent No.1 in CWP No. 332 of 2004. In our opinion these writ petitions have become infructuous. The brief facts giving rise to the filing of the petitions are that one Shri Diwakar Prasad, respondent No.2 in CWP No. 202 of 2004 was an IPS Officer belonging to the Himachal Pradesh cadre. He was posted in the State of Himachal Pradesh. On 4th March, 2003, a fax-message was received by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh from the Central Government informing him that the respondent No.2 had been appointed as Additional Director in the Intelligence Bureau on deputation basis. It was further requested that he may relieved forthwith. It appears that during this period there was a change in the Government in the State of Himachal Pradesh. On 10th March, 2003 the Government of Himachal Pradesh responded to the aforesaid request and sent a fax-message to the Cabinet Secretary that the State Government had not agreed to send Shri Diwakar Prasad on deputation. It was also alleged that disciplinary proceedings were contemplated against him. Various other grounds were raised and according to the State he had not been relieved and therefore, it was prayed that he should be sent back to join his duties in Himachal Pradesh. On 31st March, 2003, the Joint Secretary (Police) to the Central Government addressed a communication to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh stating therein that the erstwhile Chief Minister of the State of Himachal Pradesh vide his D.O. letter dated 27th February, 2003, written to the then Deputy Prime Minister had given his no objection to the respondent No.2 being taken on deputation in the Central Government in any capacity. CWP No. 202 of 2004 and CWP No. 332 of 2004. It was further alleged that thereafter he was relieved of his duties and had joined in the Intelligence Bureau. This fact was contested by the State Government and finally the State Government filed an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal at Chandigarh, challenging the action of the Union of India. This petition was dismissed as being devoid of any merit and it was held that respondent No.2 had proceeded on central deputation in accordance with the provisions of Rule 6(1) of the Cadre Rules, 1954. This order was challenged by the State of Himachal Pradesh in CWP No.202 of 2004. The Union of India also filed CWP No. 332 of 2004 against that portion of the order of the learned Tribunal wherein it held that it had jurisdiction to decide the matter. Various questions arise in these petitions. Whether the State can file an original application or not, is one of these questions. Whether such an original application, which is directed not only against an employee but also against the Union of India can be entertained or not, is also another question. But these questions have been rendered academic due to the fact that admittedly respondent No.2 has since retired from the service. This Court will not embark on a long drawn exercise only to decide hypothetical questions. The writ petitions have become infructuous due to the fact that respondent No.2 has retired. Both the writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. ( Deepak Gupta ) Judge 7th September, 2009. ( V.K.Ahuja ) ™ Judge.