CWP No.15823 of 2003 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 15823 of 2003 Date of Decision: 20 - 9 - 2010 Dharamvir .....Petitioner v. State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: None for the petitioner. Mr.Himanshu Raj, AAG, Haryana for the respondents. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) On 16.9.2010, this Court passed the following order:- “In the present writ petition, a prayer has been made that a direction be issued to the respondents to repatriate the petitioner to his parent cadre of clerks of the Municipalities of Karnal and further he be permitted to appear in the Departmental Accountant Examination of Haryana Municipal (Urban Development) commencing from 13.10.2003. Mr.Himanshu Raj, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana states that so far as the second prayer of the petitioner is concerned, he was permitted to appear in the aforesaid examination. Regarding the first prayer made by the petitioner, counsel for the State seeks an adjournment to acquaint this Court regarding the current status of the petitioner. However, it may be pertinent to notice that in view CWP No.15823 of 2003 [2] of the judgment rendered in Civil Writ Petition No.18249 of 1999, titled as, `Roshan Lal v. State of Haryana and others', decided on 28.1.2000 and Civil Writ Petition No.5497 of 2000, `Jagmohan Lal v. State of Haryana and others', decided on 28.5.2000, the respondents are bound to follow the principle of `Last come, first go' as envisaged in the above-said judgments. List on 20.9.2010. A copy of this order attested by the Special Secretary of this Court be supplied to counsel for the State for onward transmission and compliance to the quarter concerned.” Today, Mr.Himanshu Raj, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, on instructions from Mr.Dharamjit Singh, Clerk, in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra states that services of the petitioner were repatriated to Municipal Committee, Indri. Nobody is present on behalf of the petitioner today also. It seems that petitioner has no grievance to persist. Hence, the present petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to revive this petition in case any grievance remains to be redressed. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) September 20, 2010. JUDGE RC