IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No. 12989 of 2001 DATE OF DECISION : JULY 13, 2009 BALBIR SINGH BOPARAI & ORS. ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: None for the petitioner(s). Ms. Charu Tuli, Senior DAG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to allow the petitioners to perform the duties of Sub Divisional Engineer. Further prayer made is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 13.8.2001 (Annexure P-5) under which Current Duty Charge given to the petitioners has been withdrawn. Civil Writ Petition No. 12989 of 2001 2 Learned counsel for the respondent-State contends that the petitioners would have no right to continue on Current Duty Charge because even on the post of Sub Divisional Engineer that was held on Current Duty Charge, the petitioners were drawing the scale of the lower post i.e. Junior Engineer, and the petitioners had not been promoted. In this regard, reference has been made to paras 9 and 10 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of Haryana v. S.M. Sharma and others, 1993 Supp (3) Supreme Court Cases 252. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has further informed the court that Shri Balbir Singh Boparai (petitioner No.1) was promoted as Sub Divisional Engineer on 24.9.2004 in his own right. The said petitioner retired on 31.8.2006 and, therefore, cause of action does not survive. So far as Shri Raghvinder Singh Johal (petitioner No.2) is concerned, he was promoted on 19.1.2006 and he retired on 30.11.2008. So far as the claim for promotion of Shri Harjit Singh Gill (petitioner No.3) is concerned, learned counsel for the respondent-State states that the seniority number of petitioner No.3 is 319. At this point in time, the person at Seniority No.301; namely, Shri Pardeep Soni, has been promoted as Sub Divisional Engineer. The petitioner has not come within the zone of consideration. The court has been given to understand that the case of petitioner No.3 would be considered for promotion as and when he comes within the zone of consideration. I have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the respondent-State and the subsequent changed Civil Writ Petition No. 12989 of 2001 3 circumstances. In view of the changed circumstances viz. Petitioners No.1 and 2 having already retired, the claim for continuing on Current Duty Charge does not survive. So far as the claim of petitioner No.3 is concerned, the court has been informed that his case would be considered for regular promotion as and when his turn, in order of seniority, comes. In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondent-State, the cause of action does not survive and the petition is, accordingly, disposed of. July 13, 2009 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?