CWP No.8539 of 2009.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.8539 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 29.01.2010 **** Harbhajan Kaur . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab and others . . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 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? **** Present: Mr. Gourav Bhaiya, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. B.S. Chahal, DAG Punjab Mr. Anupam Singla, Advocate for respondent No.2 ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner seeks quashing of the suspension order dated 14.05.2009 (Annexure P9) as well as the order dated 12.05.2009 (Annexure P7), whereby, some departmental action is proposed against her. CWP No.8539 of 2009.doc - 2 – (2). The petitioner was due for superannuation on 30th June, 2009 when she was placed under suspension vide the impugned order dated 12.05.2009 (Annexure P7) and some departmental action was also proposed to be initiated, prompting her to approach this Court. (3). While issuing notice of motion, the operation of the suspension order dated 14.05.2009 (Annexure P9) was stayed. Meanwhile, the petitioner has retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. Her challenge to the suspension order has, thus, been rendered infructuous except to clarify that the service of the petitioner shall be treated to be ‘continuing’ on the post for all intents and purposes, till she retired. (4). As regards the second grievance, no departmental action has been initiated against the petitioner so far. Liberty is granted to her to have appropriate recourse in case the respondents take any penal action against her in future. (5). Ordered accordingly. (6). Disposed of. (7). Dasti . CWP No.8539 of 2009.doc - 3 – (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 29.01.2010 vishal shonkar