JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Heard Mr. B. Banerjee, learned counsel appearing for the State-respondents No.1, 2 & 3 and Mr. P. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the Tripura Public Service Commission, the respondent No.4. None appears for the private-respondents. When the matter is called out for hearing, none appears also for the petitioner. Even, no mention for adjournment has been made. 2. Mr. B. Banerjee, learned counsel appearing for the State-respondents has submitted that perhaps the petitioner has lost interest in prosecuting his petition, as the respondents have complied the judgment of this court as would be evident from the notification under No.F.6(67)-PWD(E)/85(S) dated 31.10.2014 [Annexure R/1], whereby the seniority of the petitioner in the Tripura Engineering Service (TES), Grade-III (Civil) (in the post of the Executive Engineer), has been fixed above Sri Somesh Chandra Das (SC), the respondent No.6 and below Sri Tapan Lodh, the respondent No.5. 3. It has been further provided by the said notification that the pay of the petitioner shall be fixed as per rules. Such re-fixation has been made on the basis of the petitioner’s appointment on regular basis on promotion to the Tripura Engineering Service (TES), Grade-III (Civil) (in the post of the Executive Engineer) with effect from 19.07.2002 when the respondent No.6 was so appointed. 4. Mr. B. Banerjee, learned counsel has further submitted that on the basis of the said seniority position in the Grade-III, (Civil), TES the petitioner has been appointed on promotion to the TES Grade-II(Civil)(in the post of the Superintendant Engineer) on promotion as UR in the scale of pay of Rs.13,575-37,000/- PB-4 GP Rs.5,600/- under the Public Works Department with effect from 10.10.2012, from the date when his junior, Sri Ratan Ganguli was appointed. However, the said promotion was made subject to the decision of WP(C) No.321/05. According to Mr. B. Banerjee, learned counsel, this takes cares of all relief/s urged by the petitioner. 5. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner had simply prayed for implementation of the judgment and order dated 10.01.2014 delivered in WP (C) No.591 of 2010 read with the judgment and order dated 31.03.2014 delivered in W.A. No.05 of 2014. The petitioner has urged for directing the official respondents to count his seniority in the grade of Executive Engineers with effect from 21.05.2009. Mr. The petitioner has urged for directing the official respondents to count his seniority in the grade of Executive Engineers with effect from 21.05.2009. Mr. B. Banerjee, learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner has not challenged the notification dated 31.10.2014 as yet. However, from the records it appears that the petitioner has urged that his appointment on regular basis shall be given effect from the date of his ad-hoc promotion. One of the major reasons for delay in the appointment of the petitioner is that he was entangled a departmental proceeding. 6. Be that as it may, the last notification dated 14.01.2015 has not been challenged so far. Even though, the perspective of the writ petition has undergone a qualitative change, the petitioner has responded to it by filing a rejoinder. In the rejoinder, the petitioner has stated that this court has held in the judgment and order dated 31.03.2014 delivered in WP(C) No.301 of 2006 that the ad-hoc promotees are entitled to regularization with retrospective effect from the date of ad-hoc promotion. Unless, the notification dated 31.10.2014 [Annexure R/1], and the notification dated 14.01.2015 under No.F.6(19)-PWD(E)/2014, a copy of which is made part of the record as stated are challenged by the petitioner, no relief can be granted. 7. Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to approach this court in the event of his dis-satisfaction to the notification dated 31.10.2014 [Annexure-R/1] and the notification dated 14.01.2015. There shall be no order as to costs.