Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Birendra Narain Shukla, learned counsel for opposite parties.
Facts, in brief, of the case are that initially respondent no.1/ R.P. Chaurasia has filed Original Application No.160 of 2004 ( R.P. Chaurasia Vs. Union of India and others) before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow with the following relief:-
" Aggrieved by the decision dated 12.9.2000 of respondent no.2 in which the applicant's name was deleted from Serial No.19-A and re-assigned at Serial No.21-A of the Seniority List, the applicant seeks for quashing of this order and for restoration of his original seniority at Serial no.19-A as informed in the letter dated 22.7.1999 of Respondent no.2. The applicant was working as Junior Shop Superintendent in Western Railway and requested for transfer to Northern Railway on the equivalent post of Carriage Foreman in the Grade of Rs.2000-3200. His application was approved by the Railway Board and he was asked to report for duty at Lucknow Division. Accordingly, he reported for duty at Lucknow Division on 3.10.1994 . He was given a posting order on 28.10.1994 and joined as CFO at Charbagh, Lucknow on 2.11.1994. The applicant's name was incorporated in the seniority list vide order dated 22.7.99 of the respondent no.2 . Allegedly, under pressure of Railway Mazdoor Union, his position was disturbed and he was placed at Serial No. 21-A in a revised order dated 12.9.2000 of the respondent no.2. He made several representations against it from 12.9.2000 onwards. Ultimately, the respondent no.2 has communicated the impugned order rejecting his case."
By means of judgment and order dated 12.11.2009 the Central Administrative Tribunal allowed the Original Application with the following observations:-
"It is certainly not the case of the respondent authority that the respondents no. 4 and 5 have been granted seniority from the dates of their ad hoc promotion. It is also not the case that they have been properly selected against vacancies meant for general candidates. It is their admitted case that the applicant was directed to report for duty at Lucknow office of Respondent no.2 . If they had problems in identifying a specific post for his work, there was no necessity on their part to ask him to report for duty at Lucknow. Therefore, the delay involved in joining for duty against a specific post, is not on account of any fault of the applicant. Therefore, the stand of the respondents to count his seniority from 2.11.1994 is not justified. In our view, the applicant' seniority should be counted from 3.10.1994, the date on which he gave joining report at Lucknow Division.
In the circumstances, the impugned order dated 12.9.2000 is set aside. The original seniority granted to the applicant at Serial No.19-A vide letter dated 22.7.1999 is restored.
In the result, the original application is allowed. No costs."
Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 12.11.2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow Bench Lucknow, present writ petition has been filed before this Court.
Sri Birendra Narain Shukla, learned counsel for opposite parties submits that due to efflux of time present writ petition has now become infructuous as R.P. Chaurasia/ contesting respondent, as well as proforma parties, namely, Sri A.K. Mall and Rakesh Kumar Srivastava in the writ petition have already retired from service.
In view of the statement given by Sri Birendra Narain Shukla, learned counsel for opposite parties, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.
.
(Saurabh Lavania,J.) (Anil Kumar,J.) Order Date :- 27.11.2019 dk/