* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 17.04.2012
+ W.P.(C) No.6979/1999
Kirodi Mal ... Petitioner
versus
Union of India & Ors. ... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr.Kunal Juneja.
For Respondents : Dr.Ashwani Bhardwaj.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA
ANIL KUMAR, J.
* The learned counsel for the petitioner states that he has no instructions from the petitioner despite efforts made by him repeatedly.
The learned counsel for the respondents on instructions states that the relief sought by the petitioner in the writ petition has already been granted to him and he has relied on order dated 15th February, 2011, a copy of which is produced in Court.
By order dated 15th February, 2011 it had been ordered that Sh.Kirodi Mal was recruited in CRPF based on educational certificate issued by Central Board of Higher Education, Vachaspati Bhawan, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. After due verification, it had been found that the aforesaid institution was not recognized. Therefore, the petitioner WP(C) No.6979/1999 Page 1 of 2 was removed from service pursuant to the order of the Disciplinary Authority.
The order of the Disciplinary Authority was, however, set aside by order dated 24th December, 2010 and the petitioner has been reinstated in service with immediate effect with all consequential benefits including continuity in service, benefits of seniority and notional promotion from the date of the promotion of his immediate juniors was granted to him. The petitioner has also been granted full back wages as were granted to Sh.Nek Mohammad who was similarly placed.
The order dated 15th February, 2011 further states that on reinstatement the petitioner has been allotted to his unit and directed by the IGP SPL Sector to report to the Commandant of the concerned unit and join his duties within one month.
In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondents and the copy of the office order dated 15th February, 2011 produced in the Court, the writ petition has become infructuous.
Consequently, the writ petition is disposed of as infructuous. Parties are left to bear their own cost.
ANIL KUMAR, J.
SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.
APRIL 17, 2012 'k' WP(C) No.6979/1999 Page 2 of 2