IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION (S/B) No. 212 of 2007 State of U.P. and others. ………………Petitioners. Versus Ramesh Bahadur Lal Saxena and another. ……..Respondents. Present: Mr. Bindesh Kr. Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners. None for respondent no. 1 i.e. the sole contesting respondent. Date of Decision : 8.7.2010 Coram: Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. J.S. Khehar, C.J, (Oral) 1. Respondent no. 1 was placed under suspension by an order dated 6.5.1972. Thereafter, a charge sheet was issued to him. Thereafter his services were terminated by an order dated 16.9. 1972 (Annexure-18). Respondent no. 1 assailed the aforesaid order of termination by filing Claim Petition No. 815/F/II/77 in 1977. The aforesaid Claim Petition was allowed by the State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow by an order dated 18.8.1993, whereby the impugned order of dismissal from service dated 16.9.1972 was set aside. 2. Dissatisfied with the order passed by the Public Services Tribunal, the petitioners herein, in order to impugn the same, approached the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad by filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4858 of 1995. On the reorganisation of the composite State of Uttar Pradesh, the aforesaid Writ Petition was transferred to this Court. Herein, it was renumbered as Writ Petition (S/B) No. 212 of 2007. 3. During the course of hearing of the instant Writ Petition, learned counsel for the petitioner acknowledged, that the impugned order passed by the State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow dated 18.8.1993 was implemented, inasmuch as, respondent no. 1 was reinstated into the service, consequent upon the setting aside of the aforesaid order of his dismissal dated 16.9.1972. He further acknowledges, that respondent no. 1 having been reinstated into the service, retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.7.1996. More than fourteen years have passed by since respondent no. 1 retired from service. At the present juncture, learned counsel for the petitioners denies any instructions in the matter. 2 Thus viewed, we are satisfied, that prima facie, the instant Writ Petition has been rendered infructuous. The same is accordingly disposed of as having been rendered infructuous. Liberty is, however, granted to the petitioners to file a Civil Misc. Application for revival of the instant Writ Petition, in case the petitioners still are desirous of pressing the claim raised herein. 4. Disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C.J.) 08.07.2010 Rathour