AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
5 paragraphs · 225 wordsNamit Kumar, J
The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari, quashing the order dated 22.10.1998 (Annexure P-2), whereby the petitioner has been reverted from the post of Head Warder to Warder and further seeking quashing the promotions of respondents No.3 to 33.
Learned State counsel, while referring to the averments made in para 19 of the written statement, submits that during the pendency of the present petition, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Head Warder on 04.08.2006 and has retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.04.2019. He further submits that even all the private respondents (except respondent No.16, who was dismissed from service on 26.07.2013 and respondent No.19, who unfortunately died on 12.04.2012) also stood promoted to the post of Head Warder and they have also retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation between the years 2000 to 2021. He further submits that in view of the above development, the instant petition has been rendered infructuous.
The abovesaid fact has not been disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner. However, she submits that the petitioner may be given liberty to approach the respondent-department if any grievance of the petitioner still subsists.
Disposed of as having become infructuous with liberty aforesaid.