C.W.P No. 1464 of 1998 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M No.3534 of 2010 and C.W.P No. 1464 of 1998 (O&M) Date of decision : August 13, 2010 Ram Parshad, ...... Petitioner (s) v. The Haryana State Electricity Board and others, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Ms. Alka Chatrath, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sudhir Hooda, Advocate for Mr. Narinder Hooda, Advocate for the respondents. *** 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 ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) C.M No.3534 of 2010 This is an application for fixing the main writ petition at an actual date. The main writ petition was filed on 29.1.1998 with the following relief :- “..... for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to immediately issue the posting order to the petitioner either at Faridabad or at C.W.P No. 1464 of 1998 (O&M) ::2:: Narnaul and further the respondents be directed to immediately release the salary of the petitioner since the month of February 1997 onwards.” By the instant application, it has been averred that during this interregnum, the petitioner was allowed to join w.e.f 19.3.1998 and has thereafter retired on superannuation on 31.7.2007 and, therefore, the only prayer which remains is payment for the period during which he was not allowed to join his duties. For the reasons recorded, this application is allowed and the main case is taken up today. C.W.P No.1464 of 1998 Counsel for the respondents states that the petitioner has also filed a civil suit seeking reliefs regarding some alleged short payments, wrong fixation of pay as well as retiral benefits. He further states that the petitioner should consolidate all these related claims in the civil suit and that he has no objection if the petitioner is permitted to withdraw this writ petition and agitate the related claims in one proceeding. Counsel for the petitioner agrees that it would be appropriate if all these related claims of the petitioner are decided in one proceeding. She, however, states that it would be more appropriate if the petitioner is permitted to withdraw this writ petition as also the civil suit with liberty to file a fresh writ petition in this Court to seek all the reliefs which he is now seeking. Counsel for the respondents states that he has no objection to that course of action also because his main point was that piecemeal relief should not be sought in separate proceedings. In my opinion, the prayer of the petitioner cannot be held to be C.W.P No. 1464 of 1998 (O&M) ::3:: unjustified. Consequently, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw this writ petition as well as the civil suit with liberty to consolidate all his related claims by filing a fresh writ petition in this Court. As the main petition has since been dismissed as withdrawn, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) August 13, 2010. JUDGE `kk'