Subsequent permission to retire renders the challenge to non-retirement orders infructuous.

The petitioner, an Executive Engineer in the District Rural Development Agency, Salem, challenged G.O. (2D) No. 149 dated 30 October 2023 and the consequential G.O. (2D) No. 151 dated 31 October 2023, by which he was not permitted to retire from service while facing vigilance and disciplinary proceedings.

During the pendency of the writ petition, the Government issued G.O.Ms. No. 615 dated 2 December 2025, permitting the petitioner to retire subject to the outcome of pending or contemplated vigilance and disciplinary proceedings.

Whether the challenge to the orders refusing to permit the petitioner to retire survived after the subsequent order permitting his retirement subject to pending or contemplated proceedings.

Whether the petitioner could pursue a claim for pension and other service benefits notwithstanding dismissal of the writ petition as infructuous.

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in relation to the petitioner’s challenge to the Government orders.

The governing procedural principle applied was that a writ petition becomes infructuous when a subsequent development substantially grants or supersedes the relief originally challenged, leaving no surviving cause for adjudication. The Court nevertheless preserved the petitioner’s right to pursue any legally available claim for pension and other service benefits in appropriate proceedings.

The original writ petition challenged the petitioner’s non-retirement orders. Since the Government subsequently permitted him to retire, albeit subject to the outcome of vigilance and disciplinary proceedings, the immediate relief sought in the writ petition had effectively been overtaken by events.

Consequently, the Court held that no effective adjudication remained necessary on the original challenge and treated the petition as infructuous. However, because the subsequent retirement order did not conclusively determine the petitioner’s entitlement to pension or other service benefits, the Court expressly left those claims open for appropriate legal action.

The petitioner was granted liberty to take appropriate action in accordance with law for claiming pension and other service benefits, if any. No costs were awarded.