IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No. 10843 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : OCTOBER 8, 2009 SRI RAM GARG ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Tribhawan Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. BS Chahal, DAG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) Reply on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4, by way of affidavit of Dr.Bhupinder Pal Singh Gill (respondent No.4), has been filed in court today, which is taken on record. The stand taken in para-2 of the preliminary objections is to the following effect:- “2. That it is submitted that the recovery of Rs.1,51,077/- was rightly made out against the petitioner in view of circular issued by the Government of Punjab. But now as per letter Civil Writ Petition No. 10843 of 2009 2 endorsement No.A-5/2009/444 dated 17.9.2009 issued by Civil Surgeon, Sangrur the pay of the petitioner has been re- affixed/revised and the petitioner has been given the proficiency of a 8 years to the petitioner. All the service benefits of petitioner as per old pay has already been disbursed by the answering respondents to the petitioner and the service benefits as per revised/re-affixed pay has yet to be issued to petitioner which will be issued to him shortly and the case of petitioner will be send to Accountant General Punjab, Chandigarh. Now no recovery of Rs.1,51,077/- is made out against the petitioner. Copy of letter endorsement No.A-5/2009/444 dated 17-09-2009 issued by Civil Surgeon, Sangrur is attached herewith as Annexure R/1.” Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in view of the stand of the respondents, as is evident from the above extracted portion, the cause of action does not survive. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of as infructuous. October 8, 2009 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?