Original application closed as infructuous after respondents redressed the applicant’s grievance.

The applicant, a Track Maintainer Grade III in Southern Railway, challenged Office Order dated 4 December 2025 and consequential orders dated 24 February 2026, by which he was redeployed from Pointsman-A to Track Maintainer Grade III and directed to vacate railway quarters.

He alleged that, despite his promotions as Pointsman-B in 2018 and Pointsman-A in 2024, he continued to perform Bungalow Lascar duties for approximately ten years, resulting in health problems including tennis elbow, ear infection, and hearing difficulty. He sought referral to a Medical Board, assignment of physically lighter duties according to his medical condition, and protection against coercive action for not vacating the quarters. During the hearing, the respondents relied on an order of the Madras High Court in W.P. No. 20014 of 2006 and connected miscellaneous petitions, recording that the relief sought had already been redressed and closing the writ petition.

Whether, in view of the subsequent High Court order recording that the applicant’s grievance had been redressed, any surviving controversy remained for adjudication in the Original Application.

Whether the applicant was entitled to adjudication of his challenge to the redeployment, direction to vacate railway quarters, and request for medically suitable duties.

The Tribunal applied the principle that a proceeding becomes liable to closure when the relief sought has already been granted or the dispute no longer survives, leaving no effective relief or live controversy for adjudication.

The Tribunal relied on the High Court’s order recording that the petitioner’s relief had been redressed and consequently closing the writ petition.

The applicant’s claims concerned his redeployment, vacation of railway quarters, and assignment of duties compatible with his medical condition. However, the respondents placed before the Tribunal the subsequent High Court order stating that the relief had already been redressed.

Treating that order as dispositive of the surviving controversy, the Tribunal held that no effective issue remained requiring adjudication in the Original Application. The Tribunal therefore did not examine the legality of the redeployment order, the applicant’s medical claims, or the substantive entitlement to lighter duties.

The OA was accordingly closed, without any further directions or grant of substantive relief.