The petitioner challenged an order of compulsory retirement. The court noted that the impugned order was stayed and no further prejudice would arise. Consequently, the court held that no consideration of the writ was necessary.
The petition is disposed of as having become 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
CWP No. 11960 of 1989 Date of decision: July 12, 2013
Jamait Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
The State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
Present: Mr. Vijay Pal, Advocate, for the petitioner.
K. KANNAN, J. (Oral)
There is no representation on behalf of the respondents.
The petitioner had challenged the order of compulsory retirement from service. It appears from the file that the court had granted stay at the first hearing and later when it admitted the case on 6.12.1989 had allowed for the stay to continue. He was 55 years of age on 8.9.1989. He must have retired by now on attaining the age of superannuation. There is no purpose to continue with this petition, challenging the compulsory retirement, which stood stayed. No consideration of the writ petition is necessary. It is disposed of as having become infructuous.
July 12, 2013 (K.KANNAN) prem JUDGE
(K.KANNAN)
Jamait Singh
The State of Haryana
K. Kannan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
