JUDGMENT : P.D. Audikesavalu, J. (Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent, praying to set aside the order dated 01.02.2018 in W.P. No. 16251 of 2010.) 1. The intra-Court Appeal arises out of the order dated 01.02.2018 in W.P. No. 16251 of 2010 passed by the Learned Judge of this Court. 2. The Appellants, who were employed in the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Oil Seeds Grower's Federation Limited, were retrenched in the year 2002 in view of its closure. The termination of the employees of the said Co-operative Society was unsuccessfully challenged by the Appellants till the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The Appellants then filed W.P. No. 16251 of 2010 in this Court for seeking their redeployment in other Government Departments based on G.O. (D). No. 165, Labour and Employment (A-1) Department dated 27.02.2002. 3. The Learned Judge, who heard the Writ Petition, by order dated 01.02.2018, held as follows:- “4. When the matter is taken up for hearing, it is represented by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that some of the employees had attained the age of superannuation and the filing of the writ petition itself was after a period of about eight years from the date of the original termination of service. Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that the writ petition hopelessly is hit by latches and not to be entertained by this Court. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioners made a valiant attempt to demonstrate before this Court that the issue is still subsisting, in view of the proposal that the employees being employed in the Society and subsequently retrenched on its closure, can be redeployed in any other Government Departments. 6. However, such view cannot be entertained by this Court after a lapse of eight years from the date of the original termination and further pendency of the litigation for about 7 years before this Court. Today, this Court cannot pass any orders of redeployment as any such relief to be granted today, would remain unimplementable, due to long passage of time. 7. Therefore, this Court does not find any subsisting issue for adjudication. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.” Aggrieved thereby, the Appellants have preferred this appeal. 4. We have heard Ms. Swadhi Subramaniam, Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants, Mrs. 7. Therefore, this Court does not find any subsisting issue for adjudication. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.” Aggrieved thereby, the Appellants have preferred this appeal. 4. We have heard Ms. Swadhi Subramaniam, Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants, Mrs. A. Sri Jayanthi, Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the Respondents and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties. 5. We are in agreement with the cogent reasons assigned by the Writ Court for declining to entertain the Writ Petition. In response to our specific query, the Learned Counsel for the Appellants has ascertained and informed that most of the Appellants have already attained the age of superannuation as evident from their dates of birth mentioned below:- S. No. Name of the Appellants Date of Birth Age 1. A.D. Rajendran 02.04.1962 61 2. S. Dhandapani 01.02.1955 65 3. P. Dhanasekaran 14.08.1954 65 4. K. Ramesh 02.05.1967 54 5. R. Natarajan 02.06.1965 57 6. A. Elumalai 11.05.1960 61 In such circumstances, no useful purpose would also be served in prosecuting this appeal further. 6. In the upshot, we do not find any reason to differ from the order passed by the Writ Court and we confirm the same and dismiss the Writ Appeal. No costs.