IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 8311 of 1989 Date of Decision: March 6, 2009 Dalip Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR Present: None for the petitioner. Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG, Punjab, for the respondent. 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? M.M. KUMAR, J. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of direction to the respondent to grant full pension to him alongwith arrears of pension with interest @ 12% per annum and all other retiral benefits with interest @ 12% per annum. It is appropriate to notice that the petitioner has earlier filed C.W.P. No. 650 of 1987 challenging order of premature retirement. The said writ petition was allowed and the premature retirement order passed by respondents was quashed on 17.12.2003. Learned State counsel at the outset has apprised the Court that on the basis of quashing of order premature retirement, the State Government has thereafter passed an order on 12.5.2004, C.W.P. 8311 of 1989 granting all retiral benefits to the petitioner on attaining the age of superannuation. Copies of the orders dated 12.5.2004 and 27.5.2004 are taken on record as Mark ‘A’ & ‘B’ (Cooly). Likewise, the respondent State has passed orders granting him benefits of leave encashment and pension, vide orders dated 7.7.2004 and 28.7.2004. The petitioner has also been paid Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity on 28.7.2004. The payments have been given to the petitioner alongwith interest. In view of above, the writ petition is rendered infructuous as the relief sought in the instant petition stands granted to the petitioner. Accordingly the petition is disposed of having been rendered infructuous. (M.M. KUMAR) March 6, 2009 JUDGE Pkapoor 2