IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 34 of 1990 Date of Decision : 29.11.2010 Surinder Mohan Vig .......... petitioner Versus State of Haryana & others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present : Mr. C.B. Goel, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Dalal, Advocate for respondent No.3 **** RITU BAHRI, J. (ORAL) The petitioner had prayed for regularisation of his services. Mr. S.S. Dalal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 has made a statement that the services of the petitioner has been regularised by the bank. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the factual position. Nothing survives in the writ petition. Writ petition is disposed of as having become infructuous. 29.11.2010 (RITU BAHRI) Rupi/'sp' JUDGE