IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 252 of 2007 (S/B) 1. State of Uttar Pradesh through the Secretary to Government, U.P. Agriculture Department, Sachivalaya Lucknow. 2. The Director of Agriculture Uttar Pradesh, Krishi Bahwan Lucknow. 3. The District Agriculture Officer District Pauri Garhwal. 4. The District Agriculture Officer District Chamoli. ……Petitioners. Versus 1. Bachi Singh Mehra presently posted as Assistant Agriculture Inspector Government Agriculture Seed Store Chamoli, U.P. 2. The State Public Services Tribunal Indira Bhawan, Lucknow. .……….Respondents. Shri Sudhir Kumar, Brief Holder for the petitioners. Shri Chandra Mauli Shah, Advocate for respondent No. 1. Coram:Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. Oral:-Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By means of this writ petition, the State has challenged the order dated 16.08.1995, passed by Public Service Tribunal, U.P. Lucknow, in claim petition No. 528/F/III/1985. 3. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 1- Bachi Singh Mehra, filed a claim petition before the Public Service Tribunal, U.P. with the pleading that he was appointed as Assistant Agriculture Inspector in 2 the year 1958. He was served with the charge sheet and placed under suspension. After conclusion of the inquiry, he was dismissed from service and it was further directed that Rs. 8592.09 be recovered from the petitioner. A criminal case relating to offence under Section 409 I.P.C. was also lodged by the Department. However, claimant (present respondent No. 1) was acquitted of the charge vide order dated 29.07.1981. The punishment awarded to the claimant (present respondent No. 1) was revised and he was awarded only minor punishments. Consequently, he was reinstated vide order dated 31.03.1983 in service. The tribunal allowed the claim petition and directed that no recovery be made from the claimant. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 pointed out that respondent No. 1 has already retired on 31.10.1992 from service and this writ petition has become infructuous. Shri Chandra Mauli Shah, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 further states that the petitioner has already been paid all service dues, directed to be paid by the tribunal and also the post retiral dues. 5. In view of the above development, this writ petition has become infructuous. The writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. (B.S. Verma, J.) (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt:03.03.2009 Sweta 3 4 5 6 7 8