IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No. 13196 of 2001 DATE OF DECISION : JULY 13, 2009 PIRTHI PAUL SINGH & ORS. ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: None for the petitioner(s). Ms. Charu Tuli, Senior DAG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) Petitioners, 6 in number, have filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing orders dated 13.8.2001 (Annexures P-8 to P- 13). Further prayer made is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to allow the petitioners to continue to hold the Current Duty Charge of the post of Sub Divisional Engineer till the consideration of the petitioners for their promotion to the post of Sub Civil Writ Petition No. 13196 of 2001 2 Divisional Engineer by the Screening Committee. Learned counsel for the respondent-State, in the context of the prayer made in the petition, contends that the cause of action does not survive any more in so much as Shri Pirthi Paul Singh (petitioner No.1) was promoted on 14.5.2003 and he retired on 31.8.2005. So far as Shri Jatinder Mohan (petitioner No.2) is concerned, he was promoted on 18.2.2009. Shri Manjit Singh (petitioner No.3) was promoted on 17.11.2003 and has already retired on 30.11.2008. So far as the case of Shri Joginder Singh (petitioner No.4) is concerned, the person senior to Shri Joginder Singh was promoted on 24.9.2004. By then, the petitioner had already retired on 31.5.2003 and, therefore, had no right to be promoted. So far as the case of Shri Ishar Singh (petitioner No.5) is concerned, it has been pointed out that he was promoted on 24.9.2004 and he has already retired on 31.12.2004. Shri Subhash Kohli (petitioner No.6) could not be promoted as he had not come within the zone of consideration. Person senior to petitioner No.6 was promoted on 21.7.2006. In the meantime, however, the petitioner had retired in March, 2006. Learned counsel for the respondent-State contends that considering the above changed facts and circumstances, it is evident that the claim of the petitioners for continuing on Current Duty Charge does not survive. So far as promotion is concerned, the facts make it evident Civil Writ Petition No. 13196 of 2001 3 that the cases of the petitioners have already been considered. In view of the above, I find that cause of action does not survive as on date and, therefore, the petition is disposed of. July 13, 2009 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?