- (1.) The learned counsel for the parties submitted that the appellants and the contesting respondents have since retired, these appeals have become infructuous.
(2.) Accordingly, the civil appeals are dismissed as having become infructuous. No costs. Civil Appeal No. 4887 of 1999
(3.) Respondent 1 had approached the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Gwalior aggrieved by the orders dated 23.9.1994 and 20.4.1995 by which juniors to him had been promoted. He sought direction for consideration for his promotion to the post of Chief Engineer from the date when his juniors were promoted with consequential benefits. At the time he approached the Tribunal he was holding the post of Superintending Engineer and was posted as Superintending Engineer (E&M), Circle Gwalior. He had joined PWD service as Junior Engineer (E&M) in the year 1969, was promoted as Assistant Engineer on 22.12.1972, to the post of Executive Engineer vide order dated 6-5-1980 and then to the post of Superintending Engineer on 5.5.1988. According to him, he was senior on the post of Superintending Engineer to the private respondents in the original application that was filed before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after considering the respective contentions and keeping in view R. 4 and R. 6 of the M.P. Public Works Department (Engineer-in-Chief and Chief Engineer) and Conditions of Service Rules, 1983, allowed the application and directed the authorities to hold a review DPC for the year in which some of the Superintending Engineers were promoted to the post of Chief Engineer and to consider his case for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer over and above his juniors and if he was found fit, he could be promoted with retrospective effect giving all consequential benefits. Aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, the State of Madhya Pradesh filed Writ Petition No. 1356 of 1998 questioning its correctness and validity. The High Court disposed of the writ petition by a short order stating that the view taken by the Tribunal based on the Division Bench decision was correct. Consequently, dismissed the writ petition. Hence this appeal.;