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 · 168 wordsNamit Kumar, J
There is a change of counsel on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. Kuldeep Chaudhary, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner and filed his power of attorney along with no objection from the earlier counsel in the Court which is taken on record.
The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to grant him 9 year ACP w.e.f. 01.08.2017 being fully eligible for the same and grant of balance leave encashment and interest on the delayed payment of gratuity, GPF and leave encashment.
Learned State counsel, while referring to the averments made in para 3 of the short reply filed on behalf of the respondents, submits that the petitioner has already been granted ACP on completion of 9 years of service w.e.f. 02.08.2017, vide order dated 17.11.2020 (Annexure R-1), therefore, the instant petition has been rendered infructuous.
Disposed of as having become infructuous.