IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No.2834 of 1997 Date of Decision: 20.7.2010 State of Punjab and another. .......Appellants through Shri Surinder Kapoor, Addl. Advocate General,Punjab. Versus Vinod Kumar. ....... Respondent through Ms.Maninder,Advocate for Shri Amit Chopra, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? .... Mahesh Grover,J. This Regular Second Appeal has been directed against judgments and decrees dated 21.3.1995 and 28.4.1997 passed respectively by the Sub Judge IInd Class, Bathinda and the District Judge, Bathinda whereby the suit of the respondent for declaration was decreed and the appeal of the appellants was dismissed. The respondent had joined service as Sectional Officer (now Junior Engineer) in the P.W.D. Public Health Department, Punjab on 17.1.1968. He disputed his seniority as fixed by the appellants and consequently filed civil suit for being placed at an appropriate place in the seniority list as per his date of joining service and be granted all consequential benefits including selection grade. The claim of the respondent was R.S.A. No.2834 of 1997 -2- accepted by the Sub Judge IInd Class, Bathinda and the challenge laid by the appellants to that decision was rejected by the District Judge, Bathinda. On 18.11.1997, the instant appeal was dismissed and in Civil Appeal No.6340 of 1998 decided on 15.12.1998, that order was set aside and the matter was directed to be heard afresh along with the writ petitions in which similar controversy as involved in it was involved. Thereafter, the appeal was placed before a Single bench after its admission by the Division Bench on 28.10.1999 where it was informed that C.W.P.No.4801 of 1998 pertained to the seniority of Junior Engineers of Punjab Public Health Department. Therefore, it was directed to be listed along with the said writ petition. Today, the aforesaid petition and this appeal were placed before me for disposal. The said writ petition has been disposed of as infructuous on the basis of the statement made by the counsel for the petitioner as well as the counsel for the private respondents therein that the petitioner and the private respondents have since retired from service. Liberty has also been granted to the petitioner in the writ petition to file a fresh petition in the event of any surviving claim. At the hearing, learned counsel for the respondent has also stated that the respondent has since retired from service and that he might have got all the benefits as directed by the Courts below as no interim directions were given by this Court. In view of the above, the instant appeal is also disposed of as infructuous. July 20,2010 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge