JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner filed O.A.No.9090 of 2000 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal seeking to challenge the order passed by the State Government in G.O.Ms.No.543, Health Department dated 8.10.1998. By the impugned order, the statutory Rules relating to appointment to the post of Reader in Rheumatology coming under the Director of Medical Education was amended. Even before the amendment, the 3rd respondent was posted temporarily as a Reader in Rheumatology in the Government General Hospital on 14.3.1997. The petitioner challenged the same by O.A.No.3446 of 1997. It is stated that the said Original Application was dismissed by the Tribunal. Even otherwise, during the pendency of the Original Application, the amendment came into force and therefore the petitioner contended that in the light of Section 19(4) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, the State Government could not have proceeded with the amendments. That Section 19(4) of the Administrative Tribunals Act operates as a bar from the Government passing the order. It is also stated that the petitioner was originally qualified as per the original Rules and the amendment made with retrospective effect has taken away her vested right of promotion. 2. By the perusal of the amendment shows that the Government found that the earlier adhoc Rules were framed only when there was no separate specialities available for Rheumatology and now the speciality course has come, it is required that the said Rules will have to be framed for the said post. Challenging the said amendment, the Original Application came to be filed. 3. On notice from the Tribunal, the respondents have filed a reply affidavit dated 22.10.2001 justifying the amendment. It is also stated that even while the 3rd respondent was temporarily promoted, the amendments were under consideration by the State Government and therefore there was no illegality in the promotion of the 3rd respondent. By the said amendment, it was made clear that for the post of Reader/Head of the Department in Rheumatology, he should possess higher speciality qualification in D.M.(Rheumatology) with sufficient experience. Therefore, there was no illegality in the amendment. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and was re-numbered as W.P.No.45952 of 2006. 4. It is now brought to the notice of this Court that subsequent to the filing of the Original Application, both the petitioner and the 3rd respondent have retired from service. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and was re-numbered as W.P.No.45952 of 2006. 4. It is now brought to the notice of this Court that subsequent to the filing of the Original Application, both the petitioner and the 3rd respondent have retired from service. With reference to the issue that Section 19(4) of the Administrative Tribunals Act operates as a bar against the State Government from pursuing, the said question is no longer res integra. The Supreme Court very recently in Union of India vs. Dipak Mali reported in 2010 (2) SCC 222 held that Section 19(4) of the Administrative Tribunals Act does not bar the Government from passing appropriate orders. Merely because an Original Application is pending before the Tribunal, the Government need not have stopped dealing with a review application. It is necessary to extract the following passages found in paras 9 to 11, which is as follows: "9. On behalf of the Respondents, it was urged that Section 19(4) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, did not contemplate stay but abatement of proceedings before other authorities once an application was admitted by the Central Administrative Tribunal. By virtue of sub-section (4) of Section 19, on admission of such application proceedings pending before other Courts and Forums would abate unless otherwise directed by the Tribunal. The learned counsel contended that in the absence of any stay, nothing prevented the petitioners from reviewing the petitioners' case and the explanation forthcoming for not taking steps under sub-section (6) of Section 7 must inure to the benefit of the respondent. 10. The learned counsel contended that in the absence of any stay, nothing prevented the petitioners from reviewing the petitioners' case and the explanation forthcoming for not taking steps under sub-section (6) of Section 7 must inure to the benefit of the respondent. 10. Having carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and having also considered the relevant dates relating to suspension of the respondent and when the petitioners' case came up for review on 20.10.2004, we are inclined to agree with the views expressed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, as confirmed by the High Court, that having regard to the amended provisions of sub-rules (6) and (7) of Rule 10, the review for modification of revocation of the order of suspension was required to be done before the expiry of 90 days from the date of order of suspension and as categorically provided under sub-rule (7), the order of suspension made or deemed would not be valid after a period of 90 days unless it was extended after review for a further period of 90 days. 11. The case sought to be made out on behalf of the petitioner, Union of India as to the cause of delay in reviewing the Respondent's case, is not very convincing. Section 19 (4) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, speaks of abatement of proceedings once an original application under the said Act was admitted. In this case, what is important is that by operation of sub-rule (6) of Rule 10 of the 1965 Rules, the order of suspension would not survive after the period of 90 days unless it was extended after review. Since admittedly the review had not been conducted within 90 days from the date of suspension, it became invalid after 90 days, since neither was there any review nor extension within the said period of 90 days. Subsequent review and extension, in our view, could not revive the order which had already become invalid after the expiry of 90 days from the date of suspension." 5. Subsequent review and extension, in our view, could not revive the order which had already become invalid after the expiry of 90 days from the date of suspension." 5. Notwithstanding the fact that the 3rd respondent retired from service, since the contentions raised by the petitioner are without substance as the Government under Article 309 of the Constitution has got power to amend statutory rules even with retrospective effect, the reason given by the Government in the impugned order cannot be said to be either arbitrary or violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The last contention based upon Section 19(4) of the Administrative Tribunals Act is clearly without merit. Hence, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.