JUDGMENT 1. The order dated 06.10.2017, non compliance whereof is alleged reads as under: "1. Learned counsel for the writ-petitioner states that the writ petitioner has since settled the dispute with his sister. If this be so the petitioner may approach the respondents for payment of terminal dues which were earlier withheld on account of dispute between the family members. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has some information under the Right toInformation Act that even after the year 2008 the Air Port Authority of India had given appointment on compassionate basis. 3. Neither before the Tribunal nor in the writ petition any pleadings have been made with respect to the said information. Therefore if advised, the petitioner may approach the respondents once again seeking appointment on compassionate basis and may rely upon the orders passed by the Air Port Authority of India granting appointment on compassionate basis even after the year 2008. Needless to say if representation is made the same shall be accorded due consideration by the competent authority of the Air Port Authority of India. Neither before the Tribunal nor in the writ petition any pleadings have been made with respect to the said information. Therefore if advised, the petitioner may approach the respondents once again seeking appointment on compassionate basis and may rely upon the orders passed by the Air Port Authority of India granting appointment on compassionate basis even after the year 2008. Needless to say if representation is made the same shall be accorded due consideration by the competent authority of the Air Port Authority of India. 4. The writ petition is disposed of." 2. The grievance is to the representation dated 13th October, 2017 not being decided. 3. In our opinion the petitioner needs to take resort to the substantive remedy before the Central Administrative Tribunal. 4. The petition is dismissed.