Based on the provided legal document, there is no indication or discussion of issues related to fraud. The judgment primarily addresses the applicability of promissory estoppel in the context of employment rights and the interpretation of letters and rules governing service conditions.

Regarding locus standi, the judgment explicitly mentions that the respondents who filed the writ petitions were not parties before the Tribunal or the High Court, and it considers whether they had the standing to challenge the orders. The court observes that the respondents' service rights are governed by statutory Rules and that no enforceable promise was made to them outside these Rules. The court also notes that some benefits were granted to the respondents during the pendency of the case, but it clarifies that its decision is confined to the specific issues decided by the Tribunal and the High Court.

In summary, the judgment does not raise any issues or concerns related to fraud, and the question of locus standi is addressed in the context of whether the respondents had any enforceable rights or standing to challenge the orders, which the court ultimately finds lacking given the statutory framework.