Petitioner claimed no cause of action existed after receiving promotion during litigation. Court found this sufficient to render the writ petition infructuous, dismissing it.
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 FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Civil Writ Petition No.6792 of 1994 Date of decision : 6.7.2011
V. Ravindran ...Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India & others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA
Present: Mr. R.D. Bawa, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Addl. Standing Counsel for UOI.
Rajan Gupta, J. (oral)
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of this petition, the petitioner was granted benefit of promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) on August 25, 1996. He further submits that the petitioner worked on the said post till the date of his superannuation, thus, no cause of action survives to him.
Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Advocate appearing for the respondent
does not controvert the aforesaid contentions.
In view of above, this petition is dismissed as having been
rendered as infructuous.
(RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE
July 06, 2011 'rajpal'
V. Ravindran
The Union of India
Rajan Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
