ORDER 1. This special leave petition is directed against the Tribunals order by which the State Home Departments letter dated 21 - 2 - 1989 and consequent fixation of seniority in the Home Departments letters dated 22 - 5~1990 and 22 - 8 - 1990 have been held to be illegal and accordingly quashed. Subsequently, the State Home Department, vide letter dated 12 - 8 - 1992 filed as Annexure R - l to the counter - affidavit; has superseded the Home Departments letters dated 22 - 5~1990 and 22 - 8 - 1990 in pursuance ()f the decision of the Tribunal impugned in this special leave petition and restored the Home Departments letter dated 27 - 9 - 1984. The petitioner in his stay application dated 1O - 12~1992 has also stated that in the meantime an order dated 24 - 11 - 1992 has been made by the State. Government .under pressure exerted by the respondents reverting 45 employees from the post of Section Officers to the post of Senior Assistants and promotions of the respondents have been made in their place. 2. Shri. P.P. Rao, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that this special leave petition has not been in fructuous in spite of the State Governments aforesaid order dated 12 - 8 - 1992. We are unable to agree with this submission. The said order dated 12 - 8 - 1992 was not required to be made by the State Government in view of the Tribunal having already quashed the a orders dated 22 - 5 - 1990 and 22 - 8 - 1990 unless the State Government as a matter of policy wanted to do so independently of the Tribunals order even though it may have been persuaded to take that action as a result thereof. Even if the Tribunals order impugned in this special leave petition were to be set aside, subsequent government order dated 12 - 8 - 1992 withdrawing its orders dated 22 - 5 - 1990 and 22 - 8 - 1990 together with the further actions taken b as a result thereof would remain and would not automatically be set aside as a result of the Tribunals order being set aside. This, in our opinion, is sufficient to distinguish the decision in State of Haryana v. Rajindra Sareen1 relied on by Shri Rao for contending that this SLP has not become in fructuous. 3. We may, however, observe that the right, if any, of the petitioner and c others similarly situate to assail any action of the Government based on any distinct cause of action shall not be treated as concluded by the dismissal of this special leave petition as infructuous. The petitioner would be free to pursue such remedy as may be available to him in that behalf. The special leave petition is dismissed as infructuous. Court Masters