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
7 paragraphs · 214 wordsJagmohan Bansal, J
On 02.11.2004, the Court passed the following order:-
“The main grievance of the petitioners is that they were not promoted on the post of Company Commander on the due date in accordance with the seniority and merit as the private respondents had been given accelerated promotion, therefore, they had not acquired the necessary experience of five years. Had the petitioners been promoted on the actual date when they were due for promotion on the post of Company Commander, the petitioners would be entitled to promotion on the post of District Commander prior to respondents No. 3 to 14. Mr. Handa, seeks short adjournment to place on record the dates on which the petitioners would have been entitled to be promoted had the private respondents not been given the benefit of accelerated promotion.
Adjourned to 19.11.2004.”
Learned counsel for respondents No.5 and 7 submits that contesting parties have retired on attaining the age of superannuation, thus, instant petition has rendered infructuous.
In the wake of statement of learned counsel for respondents No.5 and 7, the instant petition stands disposed of as having been rendered infructuous with liberty to petitioner to move appropriate application within three months from today, if cause survives.
Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.