CWP No.9925 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH * * * * * CWP No.9925 of 2008 Date of decision : September 16, 2008 * * * * * The Home Secretary, Union Territory, Chandigarh ............Petitioner Versus Vidya Sagar and others ...........Respondents * * * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH * * * * * Present: Mr. Sanjiv Ghai, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H.S Saini, Advocate for respondent no.1. * * * * * 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest? M.M KUMAR, J. The prayer made in the instant petition is for quashing the order dated 9.10.2007 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh ( hereinafter referred to as `the Tribunal'). Before the Tribunal, order dated 23.3.2005 was challanged, whereby the pay of the applicant-respondent stands revised retrospectively and the benefit of previous service as Carpenter for the period from 5.11.1979 to 21.3.1986 has also not been given. Accordingly, the pay of the applicant-respondent was fixed at Rs.4400/- as on 31.12.2004. He was allowed pension at the CWP No.9925 of 2008 2 rate of Rs.1795/- and DCRG of Rs.67,716/- was paid to him vide order dated 12.4.2005. Benefit of leave encashment etc. was also to be released by treating the pay at Rs.4400/- instead of Rs.6600/-. Feeling aggrieved the U.T administration has opposed this case as the original application filed by the applicant-respondent has been allowed. Howeve, Mr. Saini learned counsel for applicant- respondnet has stated at the outset that the order which was subject matter of challenge before the Tribunal dated 23.3.2005 has been withdrawn by the Punjab Engineering College (Deemed University), Chandigarh on 4.7.2008. As a consequence to the withdrawal of the order, the Director, Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh has passed another order on 21.8.2008. Further order by the Accountant General has also been passed on 28.7.2008. He has prayed that in view of passing of the aforementioned order, the instant writ eptition has been rendered infructuous and should be dismissed as such. In view of the above, the writ petition has been rendered infructuous as the basic order impugned before the Tribunal stands withdrawn by the petitioner themselves. Therefore, the very basis of dispute is knocked out. Dismissed as having become infructuous. ( M.M KUMAR ) JUDGE September 16, 2008 ( JORA SINGH ) ritu JUDGE