IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.21 OF 2002 Union of India, through Divisional Railway Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai Division, Maharashtra. .....Petitioner V/s. Havaldar Ramprasad ..... Respondents. Mr.Suresh Kumar, for the petitioner. Mr.Saikumar Rammurthy, for the respondent. CORAM : P.B.MAJMUDAR & R.M.SAVANT, JJ. DATE : JUNE 09, 2009 P.C. 1. The petitioner – Union of India has filed this petition challenging the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai, in Original Application No.80 of 1998. By the impugned order, the Tribunal directed the petitioner to regularize the services of the respondent- original applicant as APM with effect from the date his immediate junior was accorded the same. Other directions have also been given by the Tribunal. During the course of hearing, our attention is drawn by the learned counsel for the petitioner to para 5 and 6 of the affidavit which is placed on record. As per the said affidavit, the services of the respondent has been regularized as Assistant Pointsman with effect from 12-06-2001 in the pay scale of Rs. 2550-3200. It is further stated in the affidavit that the respondent has also been 2 promoted to the post of Sr.Assistant Pointsman in the Grade of Rs.2610-3540. The gradation list has also been published in connection with the post of Assistant Pointsman on 22-11-2001. The aforesaid orders have been annexed with the affidavit, which is placed on record and taken on record. 2. The learned counsel for the respondent fairly states that the services of the respondent have been regularized as APM and he has been promoted as Sr.Assistant Pointsman. He further states that the respondent has now no further grievance in connection with the subject matter and now the order of the Tribunal is not required to be executed by his clients in view of subsequent development. He further makes a statement that the respondent has already retired from service by way of superannuation in July 2008. 3. In view of what is stated above, the order of the Tribunal is no longer required to be implemented as the claim of the respondent has been satisfied by the Railway Administration as per the affidavit. The petition is accordingly disposed of in above terms. Rule discharged. ( R.M.SAVANT, J. ) (P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.)