A writ petition challenging dismissal from service was rendered infructuous as the petitioner had already been compulsorily retired. The court disposed of this old petition noting the survival of a pending petition against the retirement order.
The writ petition was disposed of as infructuous.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No. 1190 of 1991 Date of decision: 20.07.2011
Mohinder Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
The State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
Present: Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana for the State.
RANJIT SINGH J.
Mohinder Singh, who was working as Head Constable, had filed this writ petition in the year 1991 to impugn the order of his dismissal passed on 18.12.1990. This writ petition was admitted to be heard within six months. Operation of the impugned order was stayed till further orders. By virtue of this stay, the petitioner had continued in the service.
The petitioner was not fortunate enough to enjoy the full fruit of this interim order. Subsequently, the petitioner was compulsorily retired from service vide order dated 06.08.2003. The petitioner has filed separate Civil Writ Petition No. 20568 of 2008 to challenge his order of compulsory retirement.
In view of this changed position, the order of dismissal, which the petitioner has impugned in this writ petition, obviously may not now required to be gone into. Once the petitioner has been compulsorily retired in 2003, it will be unfair to give effect to dismissal
Civil Writ Petition No. 1190 of 1991
-2-
order, which was passed in the year 1990. It would clearly indicate that the petitioner had continued in service for a period of 13 years. The order of compulsory retirement as passed may get affected if the petitioner was taken as a person, who had earlier been dismissed from service.
I am of the considered opinion, the writ petition to challenge the dismissal order, in these circumstances, is rendered infructuous. The State counsel has also not made any submission to the counter this position. The writ petition is disposed of as infructuous as the writ petition filed by the petitioner to challenge his compulsory retirement would survive and would require consideration.
July 20, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH) rts JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging the order of dismissal is maintainable when the petitioner was subsequently compulsorily retired.
Mohinder Singh
State of Haryana
RANJIT SINGH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
