IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CWP No. 5526 of 1989 Date of decision: September 5,2011 Kuldeep Chander ....... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- None for the petitioner. Mr. O. P. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for respondent No.1. Mr. V. K. Vashisht, Advocate for the respondent Nos. 2 and 4. None for respondent No.3. **** 1. Whether reporters of local papers 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? K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. The writ petition challenges the order of transfer which was stayed by an interim order. Counsel for the respondent states that the petitioner himself has since retired from service on 30.4.2011. 2. There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. As per the contentions of the counsel for the respondents, the writ petition has become infructuous. 3. The writ petition is disposed of as having been rendered infructuous. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE September 5 , 2011 archana