IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 1684 of 2010. [O&M] Date of Decision: 22nd February, 2011. Shanti Swaroop Pathania Petitioner through None Versus Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority & Ors. Respondents through Mr. D.V.Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Ms.Shivani Sharma, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 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? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL] Learned counsel for petitioner through whom this petition was filed has unfortunately passed away. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 states that the petitioner has since been promoted as Sub Divisional Engineer on 21.12.2010. No one appears on behalf of the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner having been promoted, is not interested in pursuing this writ petition. The same is disposed as having been rendered infructuous, however, with liberty to the petitioner to seek its revival within a period of six months, if he is still left with any grievance to be addressed. If the petitioner is of the view that he is entitled to be promoted retrospectively, he may submit a representation to the Competent Authority which shall be considered and disposed of in accordance with law preferably within a period of four months of its receipt. Disposed of. Dasti. February 22, 2011. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE