IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.16515 of 2007 Date of Decision: July 23, 2009 Sudershan Mehta .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS The State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Charu Tuli, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondents. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) This civil writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release the pension and other retiral benefits to the petitioner. Further prayer made in this petition is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing Chargesheet dated 5.10.2006 (Annexure P-9). It has been brought out in the petition that after six years of retirement of CWP No.16515 of 2007 [2] the petitioner, the chargesheet was issued. Learned counsel for the respondents contends that the matter has been rendered infructuous. It has been brought out that period of absence of the petitioner has been treated as Extraordinary Leave. The case for sanction and release of pension is being processed. Learned counsel for the respondents has filed a short affidavit of Smt. Kamal Kanta, District Education Officer (EE), Jalandhar, sworn on 22.7.2009, in Court today which is taken on record. As per the affidavit, the GPF has been paid to the petitioner. Death Cum Retirement Gratuity has also been sanctioned in favour of the petitioner. Even the pension has been sanctioned. In these regards, Annexure R-1 to R-4 have been placed on record. In view of the latest development, cause of action does not survive and the petition is disposed of as having been rendered infructuous. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for interest on the delayed payment. The petitioner would be at liberty to file a representation to the respondents in regard to his claim for interest in view of the CWP No.16515 of 2007 [3] law on the issue. The respondents are directed to take a decision on the representation within four weeks of its filing and pass a speaking order. The petitioner would be at liberty to file a fresh petition in case the petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the respondents. (AJAI LAMBA) July 23, 2009 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?