IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 131 of 2007 (Old No. 6758 of 1996 Gauri Nandan, Son of Sri Har Swaroop Datt, Resident of House No. 2404, Mohalla Gujratiyan Jaspur, District Nainital (now Udham Singh Nagar). ………Petitioner Versus 1. The Public Service Tribunal, Indra Bhawan, Lucknow. 2. The State of Uttar Pradesh, through it’s Secretary, Department of Irrigation, Sachivalaya, Lucknow. 3. The Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division Kashipur, District Nainital (now Udham Singh Nagar). 4. Sri Bansi Lal Kaul, Executive Engineer, C/o Chief Engineer, Irrigation, U.P. Lucknow. ……Respondents. Mr. Kamlesh Lohani, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Jagdish Bisht, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Subhash Upadhyaya, Brief Holder present for the respondents. Dated: - November 09, 2009 Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. (By the Court) Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By means of this writ petition, moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner (an employee of Irrigation Department) has challenged the order dated 13.11.1995 passed by Public Service Tribunal, Uttar Pradesh in Claim Petition No. 221/F/4/1986, whereby the petitioner’s claim petition has been dismissed upholding the 2 stoppage of one increment awarded vide order dated 20.05.1986 as punishment to the petitioner. 3. Learned Standing Counsel drew attention of this Court to para 5 of the counter affidavit in which it has been stated that the order dated 20th of May, 1986 by which one annual increment was permanently stopped by the punishing authority, has already been cancelled, during the pendency of this writ petition, vide office memorandum No. 2952 dated 13th of September, 2004 by Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Work Circle, Nainital. Not only this, thereafter the petitioner has already been granted selection grade on completion of 16 years of service vide order dated 19.01.2005. As such, this writ petition has become infructuous, as the order challenged before the Public Service Tribunal, has already been revoked by the authority concerned. 4. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. (Alok Singh, J.) (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 09.11.2009 Ravi