MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, J.----Present appeal, filed by the were of the deceased Saeed Ahmad, an employee of Pakistan Railways, under section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, proceeds against the order dated 20-9-1992, passed by the learned Single Judge in, Chamber, whereby Writ Petition No. 1395 of 1992, filed by the appellant was disposed of having borne fruit.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that one Saeed Ahmad, deceased husband of the appellant who was a workman, employed on the Railway Loco Shed, was dismissed from service vide letter dated 28-8-1967, on some corruption charges. However, said Saeed Ahmad was, later on, acquitted by this Court, but before his acquittal could be recorded Saeed Ahmad died in the year 1983. Subsequently, the appellant being the were of Saeed Ahmad, after his death and acquittal, applied to the respondents to regularize the service of her deceased husband from the date of-wrongful dismissal till his death, but having received no response from any quarter, the appellant filed different Constitutional petitions seeking regularization of the service of Saeed Ahmad, but without any success until the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 1395 of 1992, with the following prayer:--- "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the respondents be directed to regularize the services of deceased Saeed Ahmad from the date of his wrongful dismissal till the date of his death and to allow all the benefits so accruing inclusive of pension to the legal heirs of the deceased."
3. During the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, pursuant to an interim order passed by the learned Single Judge the appellant filed a departmental appeal against the order, which was also impugned in the writ petition, before the General Manager, Railways, which appeal was accepted and the order of dismissal of Saeed Ahmad was converted into compulsory retirement w.e.f. 9-2- 1967 as a special case vide Letter No.727-E/123-PI, dated 19-9-1992. This letter was placed before this Court and the learned Single Judge on the basis of the said letter disposed of the writ petition having borne fruit, which order has been called in question through the filing of the present appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant has prayed for the regularization of the services of Saeed Ahmad, but with the conversion of his dismissal order into compulsory retirement her grievance has not been redressed, thus, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge calls for interference.
Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the Railway Department taking a vary lenient view has redressed the grievances of the appellant and under the circumstances when the writ petition has been disposed of as having borne fruit, no live issues are left to be decided, thus, the present appeal is not maintainable.
5. We have examined the record of the case and the final order dated 19-9-1992, on the basis of which the writ petition was disposed of having fructified. It would be advantageous to reproduce the contents of the said letter, which are as follows:-- "The order of dismissal from service of Mr. Saeed Ahmad son of Mithoo Khan, Clerk Gr.I., under F.O.
(D), Lahore i.e. From 9-2-1967, issued vide this office Form 'C' of even number dated 28-8-1967, is hereby revised and converted into compulsory retirement of Mr. Saeed Ahmad, i.e. From 9-2-1967, as a special case.
This is not to be cited as a precedent in any case.
This issues with the approval of the competent authority (Divisional Superintendent, Lahore).
Debits, if any, may be intimated to this office early, to arrange settlement of dues."
6. If the prayer made in the writ I petition is placed in juxtaposition to the contents of letter dated 19-9-1992. Reproduced above, the only irresistible conclusion, which can be arrived at is that as; a matter of fact by converting the dismissal of service of Saeed Ahmad into compulsory retirement, the grievances of the appellant have in fact been redressed. Not only this but it has also been ordered by virtue of the same order that as a consequence of the aforesaid conversion the dues of Saeed Ahmad may be settled.
7. Even the learned counsel during the arguments could not point out any legal infirmity in the said order warranting interference by this Court. In view of the contents of the letter the learned Single Judge in Chamber has rightly disposed of the writ petition with the observation that it has borne fruit. At this juncture it is not understandable what other relief the appellant wishes to seek.
8. We have examined the impugned order, which is legal, unexceptionable and does not call for any interference thus we are inclined to maintain the same.
The upshot of the above discussion is that the present appeal is devoid of merits, thus, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.