ORDER : Anant S. Dave, J. 1. Both these writ petitions filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India are against order dated 30.6.2016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad in O.A. Nos. 461 and 498 of 2016. 2. The petitioners are aggrieved by following directions of the Tribunal: "10. We direct that the respondents may urgently give due consideration to the representations of all the applicants respectively vide Annexure A-9 to A-24 I the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of M. Subramanian (supra) and to pass appropriate orders, as expeditiously as possible and in any case within three months of receipt of a copy of this order. The view taken by the respondents in the case will be subject to the final decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court." 3. According to Mr. HM Prachchhak, learned standing counsel for Union of India and Ors./the petitioners herein in both these writ petitions, directions as above issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, have basis in order dated 6.9.2010 passed in Writ Petition No. 13225 of 2010 by High Court of Madras in the case of M. Subramanian v. Union of India against which Civil Appeal No. 8883 of 2011 preferred by Union of India is pending. Therefore, such directions ought not to have issued and further on merit also the case of the respondents deserve no further consideration. 4. As against above, Mr. Nikhil Kariel, learned advocate for the caveator would contend that even the Central Administrative Tribunal has also taken care of pending case before the Supreme Court of India and decision that is to be rendered on a representation by respondents would be subject to final outcome of such case pending before the Supreme Court. However, the representation made by the respondents is already decided on 13.10.2016 by Chief Commissioner, Vadodara Zone of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax as per 'Annexure C' to the petition. Thus, no cause survives for the petitioners-Union of India to continue with these writ petitions and on the contrary grievances, if any, by the respondents now upon rejection of representation can be ventilated before appropriate forum. The pendency of these writ petitions, therefore, do not require any further adjudication and to be disposed of accordingly. 5. Thus, no cause survives for the petitioners-Union of India to continue with these writ petitions and on the contrary grievances, if any, by the respondents now upon rejection of representation can be ventilated before appropriate forum. The pendency of these writ petitions, therefore, do not require any further adjudication and to be disposed of accordingly. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and submissions made by Mr. Nikhil Kariel, learned advocate for the caveator in both these writ petitions, we find that the directions given by the Central Administrative Tribunal in the impugned order of considering the representation stand complied with and now grievances, if any, against such decision, for which, respondents if deemed proper can raise before appropriate forum but so far as petitioners are concerned no cause survives and accordingly, petitions stand disposed of. Notices discharged in each of the petitions. Disposed off