JUDGMENT

The petitioner has filed the captioned writ petition seeking to challenge certain clauses contained in Ext.P1 order with reference to the domicile of the employee with the respondent-Board.

2. I have heard Sri.M.K.Thankappan, the learned counsel for the respondent-Board, who with reference to the pleadings in the writ petition would point out that, there was no interim protection granted during the pendency of the writ petition and that the petitioner has admittedly retired by 31.05.2023, even according to the pleadings. Though the counsel for the petitioner, Sri.K.M.Firoz seeks a short adjournment, with reference to the pleadings in the writ petition, I am of the opinion that the prayers in the writ petition have become infructuous, since, even according to the petitioner he would have already retired.

In such circumstances, this writ petition would stand closed as infructuous.

Sd/-