CWP No. 9285 of 1991 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: February 4,2011 Vinod Chander Gupta ..Petitioner. Versus State of Punjab and others ..Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rajiv Soni, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.S.Rawat, AAG,Punjab for the respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. Ankur Soni, Advocate for respondent No.4. ... Mehinder Singh Sullar , J.(Oral) As is evident from the record, that the petitioner, who was a handicapped person, was ultimately promoted on the post of Private Secretary vide order dated 9.12.1988 (Annexure P-7) and likewise B.S. Puri, (respondent No.4) was also promoted as Private Secretary by the Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board (respondent No.3) (for brevity “respondent-Board”), by means of order dated 12.12.1988 (Annexure P8). 2. Aggrieved by the promotional order (Annexure P-7) of the petitioner, respondent No.4 filed the appeal/revision, which was accepted and respondent- Board was directed to promote the petitioner, with effect from 18.4.1991 by the Special Secretary to Government, Punjab (respondent No.2), by virtue of impugned order dated 27.5.1991 (Annexure P-12) . 3. The petitioner did not feel satisfied and filed the instant writ petition, challenging the impugned order (Annexure P-12), invoking the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. CWP No. 9285 of 1991 2 4. The writ petition was admitted and the operation of the impugned order (Annexure P-12) was stayed by a Division Bench of this Court, by way of order dated 20.6.1991. Consequently, the petitioner and respondent No.4 were (subsequently) further promoted and they continued working as such on their respective promotional posts and retired from service. 5. What is not disputed here is that the petitioner has already retired from service on 31.8.2005, sequally, respondent No.4 has also retired, after attaining the ages of superannuation. In that eventuality, as the question of any date of promotion/inter se promotion between them did not arise at all, therefore, the instant writ petition has become infructuous in the obtaining circumstances of the case, which is hereby dismissed as such, as urged on behalf of learned counsel for the parties. 6. Needless to mention, since the operation of the impugned order (Annexure P-12) was stayed by the Division Bench of this Court, therefore, the petitioner would be entitled to all service and retiral benefits of the post, he has held before his retirement. February 4,2011 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) nk JUDGE