IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 7552/2008 (OA 298/2001) Date of Decision: 03.06.2009. Man Singh Verma. Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and Others. Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting6? No. For the petitioner : Mrs. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral) The petitioner was appointed as Clerk in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Shimla on 6th January, 1978. He was transferred to Solan on 18thApril, 1985. He joined his duties in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Solan. He was informed by the Deputy Commissioner, Solan on 12th January, 2000 that, as his lien was intact in District Shimla, he should inform whether he wanted to go back to the office of Deputy Commissioner, District Whether the reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the Judgment? : 2 : Shimla or not. He gave his consent on 9th February, 2000. He was relieved of his duties on 1st March, 2000 by the Deputy Commissioner, Solan. He gave his joining in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Shimla on 2nd March, 2000. The petitioner was called upon by the Deputy Commissioner, Shimla on 11th October, 2000 to clear his position regarding lien/confirmation in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Solan. He furnished detailed reply to the same on 13th October, 2000. The Deputy Commissioner, Shimla, vide office office order dated 2nd February, 2001 terminated the lien of the petitioner w.e.f. 14.6.1994. He approached the Administrative Tribunal against the order dated 2nd February, 2001. The fact of the matter is that despite the issuance of office order dated 2nd February, 2001, the petitioner discharged his duties in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Shimla. He superannuated during the pendency of this petition. In these circumstances, since the petitioner was permitted to discharge his duties in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Shimla, the present petition has become infructuous with the passage of time. However, it is clarified that since the petitioner has been permitted to discharge his duties even after the issuance of office order dated 2nd February, 2001 at Shimla, his case was required to be considered for consequential benefits as well. : 3 : Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge. June 3rd, 2009. Bhupender