-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.22 OF 2010 with CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 730 OF 2010 Laxman Suryabhanji Yenkar ... Petitioner vs. The State of Maharashtra and others ... Respondents Mr. P.R. Arjunwadkar for the petitioner. Mr. V.S. Gokhale, AGP, for respondent No.1. Mr. P.S. Dani for respondent No.2. CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR & R.M. SAVANT, JJ. DATE: JULY 01, 2010. P.C. By way of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order of compulsory retirement which is passed under Rule 10 (4) (A) (1) of Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982. It was found that no useful purpose would be served in continuing the petitioner in service beyond the age of 55 years. The said order has been challenged by the petitioner on various grounds. 2. Mr. Dani, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent, states that the Administrative Committee of the High Court has reviewed the -2- order in question and it has been decided to reinstate the petitioner, subject to continuation of departmental enquiry, if any, pending against him. In view of the said statement of the learned counsel that the Administrative Committee of the High Court has taken a decision to reinstate the petitioner and that now only approval of the State Government is awaited, in our view, nothing further survives for consideration in this petition. As pointed out by Mr. Dani, after receiving the formal order from the State Government, necessary action will be taken for reinstatement of the petitioner and further course of action will be taken as per law. 3. It is clarified that it will be open for the High Court on its Administrative side to proceed with the departmental enquiry, if any, against the petitioner. Petition is accordingly disposed of. In view of the disposal of the writ petition, the Civil Application does not survive and the same is accordingly disposed of. P. B. MAJMUDAR, J. R.M. SAVANT, J.