The petition filed by a retired petitioner was found rendered infructuous as he had retired on 31.01.1996, making the petition superfluous. The court disposed of the matter without a hearing.
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
Date of Decision: May 15, 2013 CWP No. 637 of 1996
Amrik Singh Sethi
…Petitioner
Versus
The Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala
…Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Present: - None for the petitioner.
Mr. Tarun Singla, Advocate for Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate for the respondents
RITU BAHRI J.
Learned counsel for the respondent states that the petitioner has been retired on 31.01.1996.
Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of as having been rendered infructuous.
(RITU BAHRI) JUDGE
15.05.2013 Atul
Amrik Singh Sethi
The Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala
Ritu Bahri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
