ORDER 1. This Court by order dated 01.08.2008 issued notice to the respondent confining to examine only the question of payment of backwages to the respondent. 2. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the appellants, a perusal of the impugned order and especially the concluding part would indicate that High Court has not awarded any backwages to the respondent and instead confined the relief of re-engagement of the respondent in service with consequential benefits of seniority alone. 3. It is clear from the operative part of the impugned order which is quoted hereinbelow: "The retrenchment of the petitioner effected from 27.07.1995 is declared void ab initio and the petitioner is held entitled to re- engagement with consequential benefits of seniority alone to be counted for the purpose of retrial benefits." 4. In our opinion, there was, therefore, no need for the appellant-State to have filed any appeal against the impugned order questioning the grant of award of backwages to the respondent. 5. Be that as it may, since the leave was also confined only to the question of backwages which admittedly were not granted to the respondent by the High Court, we find no merit in this appeal. It is not necessary to go into any other question in the light of leave being granted confining to the question of "payment of backwages." 6. That apart, it is also stated that the respondent has since been also reinstated in the services pursuant to the impugned order of the High Court without paying him any backwages. Nothing thus survives in the case. 7. The appeal thus fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.