WPSB/598/2021
2022 Latest Caselaw 21 UK

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                     AT NAINITAL
               SHRI JUSTICE S.K. MISHRA, A.C.J.

                                AND

              SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.

WRIT PETITION (S/B) No. 598 OF 2021

4TH JANUARY, 2022

Between:

Smt. Seema Rani Bishnoi .....Appellant.

and

1. State of Uttarakhand, through Secretary, Department of Intermediate Education, Secretariat Dehradun, District Dehradun.

2. Director, Intermediate Education, Uttarakhand, Dehradun, District Dehradun.

3. Chief Education Officer, Haridwar, District Haridwar.

4. Committee of Management, S.S.D. P.C. Girls Inter College, Roorkee, District Haridwar- 247667, through its Manager.

...Respondents

Counsel for the petitioners: Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, learned counsel.

     Counsel for the respondents: Mr.     J.C.    Pandey,
                                 learned        Standing
                                 Counsel for the State of
                                 Uttarakhand.
                                 Mr. Nagesh Agarwal,
                                 learned    counsel   for
                                 respondent No. 4.

Upon hearing the learned counsel, the Court made the following:

JUDGMENT : (per Sri Justice S.K. Mishra, A.C.J.)

In this writ petition, the petitioner's prayer

was to issue an appropriate direction in the nature of

mandamus commanding respondent No. 4 to forward

the matter of the petitioner before respondent No. 3,

so that the petitioner may enable herself to get the

death-cum-retirement benefits.

2. Notice was issued to respondent No. 4 on

the last date.

3. Today, Mr. Nagesh Agarwal, the learned

counsel for respondent No. 4, has filed certain

documents in the Court and submitted that all the

papers of the petitioner have already been forwarded

to the respondent No. 3, i.e. Chief Education Officer,

Hardwar.

4. Hence, the writ petition has become

infructuous, as the prayer has already been met. The

writ petition is, therefore, dismissed as infructuous.

5. No order as to costs.

6. In sequel thereto, pending application, if

any, also stands disposed of.

____________

(S.K. MISHRA), A.C.J.

____________ ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.

Dt: 04.01.2022 Rathour