Writ petition becomes infructuous upon exoneration and payment of retiral dues during pendency.

The petitioner, an employee of the respondent Market Committee, was placed under suspension pending a departmental inquiry initiated via a show-cause notice dated 21.08.2018

He filed this writ petition seeking revocation of the suspension and a direction to finalize the inquiry before his superannuation

During the pendency of the petition, the petitioner retired on 30.09.2019 and was subsequently exonerated from the inquiry

Consequently, the respondent paid the retiral dues

However, the petitioner filed subsequent applications seeking interest on delayed payments, benefits under the 7th Pay Commission, and the joinder of the Managing Director of the Gujarat State Agricultural Marketing Board as a party due to other pending proceedings

1. Whether the main petition survives for consideration after the petitioner’s superannuation, exoneration, and receipt of retiral dues

2. Whether the Managing Director, Gujarat State Agricultural Marketing Board, is a necessary or proper party to the present proceedings

3. Whether the petitioner can seek reliefs regarding interest and pay scale differences in this petition while identical prayers are pending in another petition (SCA No. 7480 of 2024)

The court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

It applied the procedural principle that a party cannot pursue identical reliefs in two separate proceedings simultaneously ("ride on two horses")

Furthermore, it relied on the legal standard for joinder of parties, distinguishing between necessary/proper parties and those whose presence is irrelevant to the specific lis before the court

The court observed that the primary grievances—suspension and the pending inquiry—were rendered moot because the petitioner had retired and been exonerated

Regarding the claim for interest and 7th Pay Commission benefits, the court noted that the petitioner had already sought these reliefs in a separate, pending matter (SCA No. 7480 of 2024). Pursuing identical reliefs in the present petition would constitute an impermissible multiplicity of proceedings

Concerning the joinder of the Managing Director, the court found the official was neither a necessary nor a proper party to this specific writ, as his involvement pertained to a different proceeding

However, acknowledging the petitioner’s status as a retiree, the court allowed a request for expedited adjudication of the matter pending before said Managing Director

Special Civil Application No. 15822 of 2019 was disposed of, and notice was discharged; Civil Application No. 1 of 2024 (for joining party) was rejected; Civil Application No. 1 of 2026 was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the relief for interest and pay differences in the relevant pending petition

The Managing Director was requested to adjudicate the pending matter within three months of receiving an application from the petitioner