Punjab-Haryana High Court
Balwiner Singh vs Sgpc Etc on 16 March, 2026
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present : None for the petitioner.
Mr. P.S. Thiara, Advocate for the respondents.
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 23.06.2001 conveying to the petitioner vide order dated 03.07.2001 (Annexure P-6) vide which the petitioner was reverted from the post of Supervisor 85, Shiromani Committee to the post of Correspondence Clerk, Category 14 to category 5 post and order dated 09.07.2001 (Annexure P-7) vide which the petitioner was asked to hand over the charge to Sh. Santokh Singh without any notice; further for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus seeking direction to respondent to allow the petitioner to continue to function on the post of Supervisor 85.
2. Learned counsel for the respondents, at the very outset, submits that SEEMA 2026.03.18 18:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document nothing survives for adjudication in the present writ petition, as the grievance raised by the petitioner stands substantially redressed and the impugned order of reversion dated 03.07.2001 already stands withdrawn on 28.02.2003. He has produced order dated 28.02.2003, which is ordered to be taken on record as Mark 'X'. Registry is directed to tag the same at the appropriate place. He further prays that the present writ petition be disposed of as having been rendered infructuous.
3. Today also there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner.
4. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid submissions made by learned counsel for respondents and without going into the merits of the controversy involved in the present petition, the same is disposed of as having been rendered infructuous, there being no surviving cause of action requiring adjudication by this Court.
5. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
6. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to seek revival of the present petition in accordance with law, within a period of one month by filing an appropriate application, in the event the statement made by learned counsel for respondents is found to be factually incorrect or the grievance of the petitioner is not fully redressed.
HARPREET SINGH BRAR Sima SEEMA 2026.03.18 18:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document