JUDGMENT : Heard Ms. M.M. Pal, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner along with Ms. Aparajita Sinha, Advocate. 2. Heard Ms. Nitu Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India. 3. Heard Mr. Ankit Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Jharkhand. 4. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: - “A) The Respondents be directed to consider the case of this petitioner for promotion to the I.A.S. Cadre retrospectively w.e.f. 1998 i.e., the date of his Selection and to give all consequential benefits thereon. B) The Respondents be directed to issue integrity Certificate with retrospective effect and to give all consequential benefits thereon. C) The Respondents be directed not to discriminate the petitioner arbitrarily and to give him the benefits of his selection to the post of I.A.S. Cadre as has been given to the same and similarly situated persons. D) Any other relief or reliefs to which the petitioner is entitled to be granted to the petitioner.” Arguments of the petitioner 5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had earlier moved before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 12587/2001 seeking a direction upon the respondent-State to issue Integrity Certificate to the petitioner. She submits that the said writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 28.11.2001. The petitioner filed appeal being L.P.A. No. 75/2002, which was allowed vide order dated 28.02.2003 as contained in Annexure-1 to the present writ petition. She submits that in LPA No. 75 of 2002, the court disagreed, interalia, with the view taken by the learned Single Judge that issuance of Integrity Certificate is an administrative decision and held that the authority cannot refuse to grant integrity certificate on whimsical or arbitrary grounds and observed that in spite of representation filed by the petitioner, the authority had not considered the matter regarding grant of Integrity Certificate to him and the LPA was disposed of with a direction upon the State Government to decide the question of grant of Integrity Certificate to the petitioner within a period of six weeks. 6. The learned senior counsel further submits that thereafter the respondent-State passed another order dated 24.07.2003 rejecting grant of Integrity Certificate to the petitioner on the ground that there has been some disciplinary proceeding and imposition of some minor punishment against the petitioner in the past. 6. The learned senior counsel further submits that thereafter the respondent-State passed another order dated 24.07.2003 rejecting grant of Integrity Certificate to the petitioner on the ground that there has been some disciplinary proceeding and imposition of some minor punishment against the petitioner in the past. The said order of rejection dated 24.07.2003 was challenged in W.P.(S) No. 4484/2003, which was decided vide judgment dated 25.11.2003 and this Court considered the fact that the punishment, that too a minor punishment, related to way back in the year 1989-90, followed by subsequent promotion of the petitioner, has lost its relevance with the passage of time. Consequently, the aforesaid order dated 24.07.2003 was setaside and the State of Bihar was directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner in the matter of grant of integrity certificate as expeditiously as possible, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 7. The learned senior counsel submits that thereafter, the petitioner had to file a the petition for initiating contempt proceedings on account of non-compliance of order passed in W.P.(S) No. 4484/2003 and ultimately, the integrity certificate was issued by the State of Bihar only on 28.12.2003 and the petitioner retired on 31.12.2003. 8. A supplementary-affidavit has also been filed by the petitioner annexing a letter dated 30.12.2003, wherein it has been mentioned that the integrity certificate issued by Government of Bihar has been received in the Office of the U.P.S.C. (Union Public Service Commission) on 30.12.2003 and it was mentioned that the petitioner was to retire on 31.12.2003. The learned senior counsel submits that thereafter the petitioner ultimately retired and the present writ petition has been filed on 08.01.2004 seeking the aforesaid relief from this Court. It is not dispute that the present writ petition has never been admitted for final hearing by this Court. Arguments of the Union of India 9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent- Union of India, on the other hand, has submitted that the present writ petition itself is not maintainable, as the relief, as prayed for by the petitioner falls within the jurisdiction of Central Administrative Tribunal. Arguments of the Union of India 9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent- Union of India, on the other hand, has submitted that the present writ petition itself is not maintainable, as the relief, as prayed for by the petitioner falls within the jurisdiction of Central Administrative Tribunal. She has further submitted that so far as Union of India is concerned, unless there is a selection process conducted by the UPSC, there is no question of any recommendation to the Union of India and there being no recommendation to Union of India, no relief can be granted to the petitioner straightaway. The petitioner cannot be granted relief merely because an Integrity Certificate has been issued to the petitioner unless the petitioner during his service tenure had gone through the selection process conducted by the UPSC. She submits that the dispute in connection with the issuance of integrity certificate is between the petitioner and State Government Jharkhand or State of Bihar, but Union of India has got nothing to say in that regard, but the relief as prayed for by the petitioner may not be granted by this Court in the aforesaid facts and circumstances. 10. Learned counsel for the Union of India has further submitted that only the integrity certificate was sent but the name of the petitioner was never recommended which is a necessary exercise to be undertaken by the State before consideration of any person to be appointed in IAS Cadre. The learned counsel has also submitted that by the time the eligibility certificate was issued, the select list had ceased to be in operation. Arguments of the State of Jharkhand 11. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Jharkhand, on the other hand, has also submitted that Integrity Certificate was duly issued by the State of Bihar and was forwarded to UPSC and the earlier order passed by this Court was duly complied with. The learned counsel submits that so far as State of Jharkhand is concerned, no inaction has been alleged as the direction for issuance of Integrity Certificate was issued by the State of Bihar and it was to be issued by the State of Bihar only. The learned counsel submits that so far as State of Jharkhand is concerned, no inaction has been alleged as the direction for issuance of Integrity Certificate was issued by the State of Bihar and it was to be issued by the State of Bihar only. The learned counsel has also submitted that so far as allocation of I.A.S. Cadre is concerned, the petitioner cannot be granted such relief post retirement and without going through the selection process of IAS through UPSC. The learned counsel supports the submission of the Union of India. Rejoinder arguments of the Petitioner 12. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner, in response, submits that the petitioner has retired from the post of Director in the Primary Education Department and the age of retirement in the Primary Education Department was only 58 years and had he been allocated I.A.S. Cadre, then under such circumstances, the age of retirement would be 60 years and therefore, the petitioner was entitled to the relief as prayed for in the writ petition even on the date when the writ petition was filed. The learned counsel has also submitted that for the latches of the respondents, the petitioner shall not suffer and she refers to a decision reported on (2007) 11 SCC 447 . Queries put to the learned counsel for the petitioner by the court during the course of hearing and the Findings of this court 13. It is not dispute that the present writ petition has not been admitted for final hearing by this Court. 14. During the course of hearing, a specific query was put to the learned senior counsel for the petitioner by this Court, as to whether the present writ petition itself is maintainable or not or whether the Central Administrative Tribunal would have the Jurisdiction by virtue of Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 in the matter, considering the reliefs as prayed for by the petitioner. In response, the learned senior counsel has fairly submitted that the Central Administrative Tribunal would certainly have the jurisdiction to entertain a petition of this nature, but considering the fact that numerous orders were passed in the case of the petitioner by this Court and the petitioner has suffered on account of latches on the part of the State and also the fact that certain P.I.L. was also filed before this Court in order to ensure filling up the backlog vacancies in I.A.S, the present writ petition has been filed before this court. She also submits that no such objection regarding maintainability of the present writ petition was ever raised from the side of the respondents. 15. In response to another query raised by this Court as to whether the direction to grant promotion to I.A.S. can be issued by this Court after the retirement of the petitioner and the present writ petition itself has been filed after his retirement, the learned senior counsel has submitted that a rejoinder has been filed in the present case which is dated 06.05.2009 and in the said rejoinder, a case of one Kamal Prasad Singh has been mentioned who had raised a grievance before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna, for his non-inclusion in the select list of 1996 in O.A. No. 83/1998. In the said case, vide a detailed judgment dated 02.11.1999, the O.A. was allowed with a specific direction that the meeting of the Committee shall be convened as soon as possible so as to include the name of Kamal Prasad Singh and the order of promotion was also directed to be issued as soon as possible preferably during that month before his retirement. She submits that on account of non-compliance of the order passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna, a contempt application was also filed and ultimately, said Kamal Prasad Singh was appointed to I.P.S. Cadre vide order dated 26.03.2002. Although the order passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal has not been brought on record, but the notification by which the said Kamal Prasad Singh was appointed to I.P.S. has been annexed as Annexure-14 to the rejoinder. Although the order passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal has not been brought on record, but the notification by which the said Kamal Prasad Singh was appointed to I.P.S. has been annexed as Annexure-14 to the rejoinder. The learned senior counsel has also referred to the case of another person, namely, Anirudha Prasad Srivastava, who filed a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 2318/2004 as contained in Annexure-12 to the rejoinder, which was decided on 15.12.2004 and she submits that in the said writ petition, considering the stand taken by the respondents, UPSC was directed to take a decision on the basis of Integrity Certificate dated 30.12.2002 in accordance with law. She submits that in the said writ petition, a prayer was made seeking a direction upon the UPSC and the Government of India to take a final decision and notify it in pursuance of integrity certificate sent by the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar to the Secretary, New Delhi in respect of promotion to I.A.S. The learned counsel submits that ultimately the said Annirudha Prasad Srivastava was granted promotion. The learned counsel has also referred to Annexure-15 dated 12.03.2004, wherein the year of allotment with respect to various persons from State of Jharkhand for the purposes of fixing of seniority was also decided in connection with 3 years select list i.e., 1998, 1999 and 2000. The learned senior counsel submits that there is no legal bar in law from appointing the petitioner as I.A.S. with a retrospective date even after his retirement. She also submits that merely because petitioner has retired, the same does not disentitle him for the relief as sought for in the present case, as the petitioner cannot be made to suffer on account of latches on the part of the respondent-State. 16. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the records of this case, this court finds that the present writ petition was filed on 08.01.2004 and vide order dated 13.01.2004 the State of Bihar as well as Union of India were directed to file counter affidavit. Thereafter on 23.12.2004, respondent No. 8-UPSC was also directed to file counter affidavit. Thereafter on 23.12.2004, respondent No. 8-UPSC was also directed to file counter affidavit. It, inter-alia, appears that the State of Bihar as well as UPSC filed their counter affidavit and vide order dated 04.05.2005, the writ petition was disposed of by recording that it is admitted case that during the pendency of the writ application, the concerned respondent have issued integrity certificate. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the UPSC that the petitioner’s name has already been recommended by UPSC and now the final decision was to be taken by Union of India. Consequently the respondent No. 7 was directed to take a final decision regarding promotion of the petitioner within a period of two months. 17. Thereafter a civil review application was filed bearing No. 75/2005 by UPSC on the ground that specific plea was raised in para 6.5 of the counter affidavit filed by UPSC that it had decided to call for an advice from the D.O.P.T. But due to inadvertence in making the submission, it was recorded in the order disposing the writ petition that petitioner’s name was already recommended by UPSC and now final decision was to be taken by Union of India. In the aforesaid background the aforesaid order disposing of the writ petition was recalled vide order dated 12.07.2005 and the writ application was restored to its original petition and listed and adjourned vide order dated 11.07.2006. Thereafter the matter was, taken up on 19.01.2009 and was adjourned from time to time for the purposes of filing of affidavit by one or the other Respondent. On 18.03.2021, learned counsel for the Union of India had referred to the letter which was sent to her by Union of India annexing the relevant portion of the appointment of IAS by promotion Regulations 1955 which was taken on record. It further appears from the records of this case that the counter affidavit was filed by respondent No. 8 UPSC vide affidavit dated 11.02.2009 wherein the statement in para 6.5 and earlier counter affidavit was reiterated and para 2.1 and 2.2 of the communication between UPSC and Government of India, DOP&T was mentioned. The said portions of the counter affidavit filed by UPSC are quoted as under :- “6.5 The matter was considered by the Commission, the Answering Respondent. It was observed that the State Govt. The said portions of the counter affidavit filed by UPSC are quoted as under :- “6.5 The matter was considered by the Commission, the Answering Respondent. It was observed that the State Govt. had only furnished the integrity certificate in respect of the petitioner without any positive proposal to the Commission to declare his name unconditional in the Select List as was required under the Regulations. Moreover, the Select List had ceased to be in force by that time. As such, any further action on the part of the Commission to declare the name of the petitioner in the Select List 1998 would have been contrary to the specific provisions of the Promotion Regulations, mentioned in the following paragraphs. As the Govt. of India (DOPT) are the nodal authority for framing, interpretation and amendments in the Promotion Regulations, the Commission decided to call for their advice. Accordingly, the Govt. of India, Respondent No. 7 were requested vide Commission’s letter dated 31.12.2003 to advise on the further course of action in the matter keeping in view the orders of the Hon’ble High Court. The reply from the Govt. of India is still awaited despite reminders dated 20.02.2004, 11.11.2004, 10.12.2004 and 14.01.2005.” “2.1 To recapitulate, it may be recalled that the name of Shri Satyadeo Singh was included in the year-wise Select Lists for the years 1998, 1999 and 2000, prepared on 16th & 17th May, 2001 for promotion to the IAS of Bihar Cadre, provisionally subject to grant of his Integrity Certificate by the State Government. In Pursuance to the 2nd proviso to Regulation 7(4), the name of the officer can be made unconditional in the respective Select List provided the State Govt. forwarded a proposal to declare his name as unconditional, along with a positive recommendation that the conditions leading to the officers provisional inclusion no longer subsists. However, no such proposal was received from the State Govt. within the specified validity period of the Select Lists. 2.2. Subsequently, the State Govt. vide their letter dated 29.12.2003 merely forwarded the integrity certificate in respect of Shri Satyadeo Singh in compliance with the directions dated 25.11.2003 of the Hon’ble High Court in W.P. (S) No. 4484/2003. However, no positive proposal was forwarded by the State Govt. as was required under the Regulation, to declare the name of Shri Satyadeo Singh as unconditional in the Select Lists. However, no positive proposal was forwarded by the State Govt. as was required under the Regulation, to declare the name of Shri Satyadeo Singh as unconditional in the Select Lists. Moreover, the Select Lists had ceased to be in force by that time. As the Govt. of India (DOPT) are the nodal authority for framing, interpreting and amending the Promotion Regulations, the Commission vide their letter dated 31.12.2003 requested them to advise on the further course of action in the matter keeping in view the orders of the Hon’ble High Court. The reply from the Govt. of India is still awaited. Thus, the fact that the matter is still pending a decision in the DOP& T has not been brought out in the reply being filed by the DOP &T.” To the said counter affidavit, a rejoinder was filed by the petitioner which has already been referred to by learned senior counsel for the petitioner. 18. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was a member of Bihar Administrative Service and thereafter Jharkhand Administrative Service and has superannuated on 31.12.2003 from the State of Jharkhand. It is further not in dispute that during his service period, he was imposed certain minor punishment in the year 1995. Thereafter the petitioner was promoted from time to time and he was also promoted to the rank of Special Secretary w.e.f. 16.03.1999 vide order dated 09.03.2000. Thereafter in the year 2001, the case of eligible officers for promotion to the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) in the year 1998, 1999 and 2000 was considered. In the year 1998, there were 16 vacancies and the name of the petitioner was placed at serial No. 1 in the selection list and such inclusion was made provisionally subject to grant of integrity certificate by the state government. Similar was the situation in the selection list of 1999 as well as in the select list of 2000. The final selection list was forwarded to the State government for its recommendation to UPSC and the central government as per the regulation. The name of the petitioner was not recommended in any of the select list on the ground of non-issuance of integrity certificate required under the Regulation and purportedly the same was on account of the imposition of the aforesaid minor penalty long back. The name of the petitioner was not recommended in any of the select list on the ground of non-issuance of integrity certificate required under the Regulation and purportedly the same was on account of the imposition of the aforesaid minor penalty long back. Under such circumstances, the petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a direction upon the state government to issue the integrity certificate before the Hon’ble Patna High Court being CWJC No. 12587 of 2001 which was dismissed vide order dated 28.11.2001. Against the order of dismissal of the writ petition, the petitioner preferred Letters Patent Appeal bearing L.P.A. No. 75 of 2002 and the Hon’ble Patna High Court vide order dated 28.02.2003 was pleased to direct the State Government to decide the question of grant of integrity certificate within a period of six weeks holding that the grant of integrity certificate is an administrative decision but the same is required to be taken on certain relevant considerations and the authority cannot refuse to grant integrity certificate on whimsical or arbitrary grounds. In the meantime, the State of Jharkhand was created and the petitioner was working in the State of Jharkhand, but the State of Bihar did not issue the integrity certificate to any of the officers who were provisionally posted and working in the State of Jharkhand and therefore several writ petitions were filed for issuance of integrity certificate. The petitioner preferred application for non-compliance of order passed in the writ court and the respondent State of Bihar issued letter dated 24.07.2003 refusing to issue integrity certificate in favour of the petitioner which was challenged by the petitioner in another writ petition bearing No. 4484 of 2003 and was allowed vide judgment dated 25.11.2003 after holding that the decision of Government of Bihar refusing to grant integrity certificate was not sustainable in law and the State of Bihar was directed to re-consider the case of the petitioner in the matter of grant of integrity certificate and take a decision expeditiously within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 19. The integrity certificate was issued belatedly and was received in the office of the UPSC only on 30.12.2003 and the petitioner was to retire on 31.12.2003. 19. The integrity certificate was issued belatedly and was received in the office of the UPSC only on 30.12.2003 and the petitioner was to retire on 31.12.2003. Thereafter the petitioner retired on 31.12.2003 and upon retirement, the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking appointment by promotion to IAS cadre with retrospective effect. It is not in dispute that appointment by promotion to IAS from state services is governed by IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 which has a detailed procedure to be followed which, interalia, includes recommendation from the state government. As per the said regulation, the selection committee is presided over by the Chairman/member of UPSC who recommends State Civil Service Officers for promotion to IAS and the State government and the central government are required to furnish their observation on the recommendation of the selection committee. 20. The appointment to the IAS is made from the select list by the Government of India, Department of Personnel and Training, on the recommendation of the selection committee and the selection is to be made during the validity of the period of select list. This entire procedure has been elaborately narrated by Respondent No. 8 in their counter affidavits and the procedure for selection to IAS is not in dispute. It is also the case of the UPSC that the name of the petitioner was included in the year-wise select list for the year 1998, 1999 and 2000 prepared on 16th and 17th of May, 2001 for promotion to IAS from Bihar Cadre provisionally subject to grant of the integrity certificate by the State Government. It is the case of UPSC that in pursuance to 2nd proviso to Regulation 7 (4), the name of the officer can be made unconditional in the respective select list provided the state government had forwarded a proposal to declare his name as unconditional along with the positive recommendation that the conditions leading to officers’ provisional inclusion no longer subsist. It is further case of UPSC that in the present case no such proposal was received from the state government within a specified validity period of the select list and in absence of such positive proposal from the state government, UPSC sought advice from Union of India, but no such clarification/advice was received from Union of India. It is further case of UPSC that in the present case no such proposal was received from the state government within a specified validity period of the select list and in absence of such positive proposal from the state government, UPSC sought advice from Union of India, but no such clarification/advice was received from Union of India. The affidavit of the UPSC clearly reflects reasons for not granting promotion to the petitioner to IAS cadre in spite of the fact that the integrity certificate of the petitioner was received in the office of UPSC just before one day prior to his retirement. UPSC has taken a specific stand that the name of the petitioner was kept in the list with a condition of production of integrity certificate and by the time the integrity certificate was produced, the petitioner retired on the very next date and by this time, the period of select list had already expired. 21. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the Union of India has taken an objection that the writ petition itself is not maintainable as the relief as prayed for by the petitioner is a matter of jurisdiction of Central Administrative Tribunal. 22. Learned counsel for the petitioner has responded to the query raised by this court as to whether the petition itself is maintainable or not or whether the Central Administrative Tribunal would have the jurisdiction to entertain the relief as prayed for by the petitioner by virtue of Administrative Tribunal Act and the learned senior counsel has fairly submitted that the Central Administrative Tribunal would certainly have jurisdiction to entertain a petition of this nature, but has insisted that in view of numerous orders which were earlier passed in the case of the petitioner from time to time and on account of the fact that the petitioner has suffered on account on latches by the State, the present writ petition has been filed and therefore it is maintainable. 23. This court is of the considered view that numerous orders which have been passed by this court earlier were in relation to issuance of integrity certificate to the petitioner by the state government. 23. This court is of the considered view that numerous orders which have been passed by this court earlier were in relation to issuance of integrity certificate to the petitioner by the state government. Now the stage has changed and the present writ petition has been filed after issuance of integrity certificate for the reliefs as mentioned above and it is not in dispute from the side of the petitioner that the Central Administrative Tribunal would certainly have jurisdiction to entertain a petition of this nature. This court is of the considered view that merely because the earlier writ petitions/ contempt proceedings in relation to issuance of integrity certificate was decided by this court, this writ petition is not fit to be entertained by this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India bypassing the alternative, appropriate and efficacious remedy available to the writ petitioner before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal. 24. In the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2002) 4 SCC 145 (Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan vs. Subhas Sharma and others), the Supreme Court has reiterated the view taken by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India reported in (1997) 3 SCC 261 , and extracted the relevant portion of para-93 and 99 of the decision of the Constitution Bench in L. Chandra Kumar (supra) and in para-11 recorded that it was not open to the litigant to directly approach the High Court except in cases where they question the vires of statutory legislation (except where the legislation which creates the particular Tribunal is challenged) by overlooking the jurisdiction of the Tribunal concerned. The relevant extract of the judgment of L. Chandra Kumar as quoted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment reported in (2002) 4 SCC 145 at para 11 and 12 are quoted as under: “11. To appreciate the second submission of Mr Ahmed, we extract below relevant portions from paragraphs 93 and 99 of the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in L. Chandra Kumar case (SCC pp. 309 & 311, paras 93 & 99) “93. … We may add that the Tribunals will, however, continue to act as the only courts of first instance in respect of the areas of law for which they have been constituted. 309 & 311, paras 93 & 99) “93. … We may add that the Tribunals will, however, continue to act as the only courts of first instance in respect of the areas of law for which they have been constituted. By this, we mean that it will not be open for litigants to directly approach the High Courts even in cases where they question the vires of statutory legislations (except, as mentioned, where the legislation which creates the particular Tribunal is challenged) by overlooking the jurisdiction of the Tribunal concerned. 99. … It will not, therefore, be open for litigants to directly approach the High Courts even in cases where they question the vires of statutory legislations (except where the legislation which creates the particular Tribunal is challenged) by overlooking the jurisdiction of the Tribunal concerned. Section 5(6) of the Act is valid and constitutional and is to be interpreted in the manner we have indicated.” 12. The Constitution Bench of this Court has clearly held that tribunals set up under the Act shall continue to act as the only courts of first instance “in respect of areas of law for which they have been constituted”. It was further held that it will not be open for litigants to directly approach the High Court even in cases where they question the vires of statutory legislation (except where the legislation which creates the particular Tribunal is challenged) by overlooking the jurisdiction of the Tribunal concerned.” 25. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid findings, this court is not inclined to grant the relief as prayed for by the petitioner in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the point of maintainability of the writ petition is decided against the petitioner as the Central Administrative Tribunal is the appropriate forum having jurisdiction to entertain a petition for the relief as prayed for by the petitioner in this writ petition. 26. In view of the fact that the maintainability of the writ petition has been decided against the writ petitioner, this court is not inclined to give any conclusive findings on the merits of the points raised by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner. It will certainly be open to the petitioner to avail alternative remedy as permissible under law. 27. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of. 28. It will certainly be open to the petitioner to avail alternative remedy as permissible under law. 27. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of. 28. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not pressed.