Employment classifications must align with entitlements, and procedural follow-through is essential when disputing an employee's claims.

This writ petition is filed with following prayers:

i.to declare that the petitioner is a regular employee of the 3rd respondent society and in that capacity he is entitled to attend the JDC training course for the year 2016-2017 conducted by the 2nd respondent;

ii.to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 2nd respondent to accept the application form submitted by the petitioner and to permit him to attend the JDC training course for the year 2016- 2017, ignoring the entry in the Form-III Certificate, made by the first respondent, to the effect that the petitioner is a Bill Collector working on commission basis iii.to grant such other relief's as this Honourable Court may deem fit in the circumstances of this case.

(SIC) 2.When this writ petition came up for consideration on 31.03.2016, this Court passed the following order :

“Learned Government Pleader takes notice for the first respondent. Sri.C.P.Mohammed Nias, the learned Standing Counsel, takes notice for the second respondent. Issue notice by speed post to the third respondent.

2. The application form submitted by the petitioner to attend the JDC Training Course for the year 2016-17 shall be provisionally accepted. The same shall be subject to further orders in the writ petition.

3. Further, in Exhibit P9 the first respondent has observed as follows:

"He has been appointed as bill collector as per circular No. 10/2005 of the Registrar of cooperative societies (1.4.2006). As per the conditions of that circular the pay scale of these persons cannot be fixed by including them in the feeder category. But it is seen that his pay scale has been fixed."

4. Going by the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the first respondent seems to have been observing in the manner indicated above with religious regularity in every application that has been presented to him. Prima facie, it seems the observation is gratis and perhaps uncalled for. However, I hasten to add that the first respondent may have his reasons to come to a conclusion that the pay fixation is illegal. But more endorsement in unconnected proceedings on the alleged illegality will not suffice. As a responsible official, he ought to have taken further steps.

5. The first respondent, in these circumstances, shall file a counter affidavit explaining whether at any point in time he has taken any follow up steps pursuant to his observation that the pay scales of the Bill Collectors ought not to have been fixed.”

3.Today, when the matter came up for consideration, the counsel for the 2nd respondent submitted that the duration of the course is already over.

4.If that be the case, nothing survives in this case. This writ petition need not be retained here. If there is any surviving grievance to the petitioner, the same is left open.

With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of.