Judgment :- S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. The first respondent-Thirukoil Paniyalargal Sangam, Ambasamudram, a registered trade Union (hereinafter referred to as the "Union") along with one of its members preferred the Writ Petition No.3213 of 1997 against an order in O.Mu.No.73013/96-II dated 10th October, 1996 passed by the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department. By the said order, the Commissioner directed to grant pension to the members of the Union as granted to the Archakars, Odhuvars, Musicians and Vedaparayanars except Parisaragars. It appears that the Union wanted pension to all of its members. Therefore, it also filed a petition for interim relief. In the petition for interim relief, a direction having been given to pay pension, the appellant-Government of Tamil Nadu preferred a Review Application No.60 of 1998. Both the review application and the writ petition were heard by a learned single Judge and after hearing the parties, by the common impugned order dated 24th November, 2000, passed the following order and direction: "29. In these circumstances, the following order, in my view, will meet the ends of justice. (i) The Government of Tamil Nadu and the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department shall prepare a scheme on the lines of the scheme prepared for the Archakars, Odhuvars, Vedaparayanars, Divya Prabandham Paduvors, Araiyars and Musicians for giving retirement benefits to the other servants of temples of Tamil Nadu under the administration and governance of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Dpeartment within a period of six months from today. (ii) It is the sole responsibility of the respondents to mobilize the funds for meeting the financial commitment by enforcing recovery proceedings from the recalcitrant tenants squatting on the properties of the various temples without paying the lease amounts or from other sources, and (iii) The Scheme to be implemented within a period of one year thereafter." The Government of Tamil Nadu, being not satisfied, preferred this appeal. 2. When the writ appeal was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Union submitted that during the pendency of the writ appeal, the Government of Tamil Nadu, of its own, has issued G.O.Ms.Nos.54 & 55 dated 13th February, 2006 for grant of pension in favour of its members. However, the Union, being not satisfied, has preferred Writ Petition Nos.47752 & 49733 of 2006, which are pending. However, the Union, being not satisfied, has preferred Writ Petition Nos.47752 & 49733 of 2006, which are pending. According to the learned counsel for the Union, the writ appeal has become academic and infructuous. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State does not refute the facts as mentioned above. But, according to him, the judgment in the present case may have a bearing on the writ petitions. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and noticed their relevant contentions. The Government Order Nos.54 & 55 dated 13th February, 2006 which have been passed during the pendency of the writ appeal are not on record. Further the question of legality and propriety of those Government Orders cannot be decided in this appeal, which is to be determined in the pending writ petitions. In these circumstances, we are not inclined to give any finding on the version whether the State Government has granted proper relief to the members of the Union or not. 5. So far as the present appeal is concerned, as we find that the direction issued by the learned single Judge has been implemented by G.O.Ms.Nos.54 & 55 dated 13th February, 2006, we are of the opinion that the present writ appeal has become infructuous. So far as the finding of the writ appeal is concerned, as we are not deliberating on the merit of the appeal, we are of the view that no party can take advantage of the decision passed in Review Application No.60 of 1998 and Writ Petition No.3213 of 1997 dated 24th November, 2000 impugned in the writ appeal for determination of the Writ Petition Nos.47752 & 49733 of 2006 which are pending before this Court. The writ appeal stands disposed of with the aforesaid observation, but there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, C.M.P.No.9317 of 2001 is closed.