Prem Parkash Rehni v. State Ofharyana And ORS

CWP-10924-2001(O&M)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CWP-10924-2001(O&M) Date of decision:16.03.2026 Prem Parkash Rehni .....Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present :

None for the petitioner.

Mr. Piyush Khanna, Addl. AG Haryana-State.

Mr. Nischal Chetanya Manchanda and Mr. Vipul Thakur, Advocates for respondents No.4.

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 mandamus directing the respondents to release forthwith the pensionary benefits of the petitioner such as pension, provident fund, leave encashment and gratuity etc along with interest @ 24% per annum for the delayed period.

2.

Learned counsel for respondent No.4, at the very outset, submits that on the last date of hearing i.e. 11.02.2026, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner. However, due to inadvertence, his presence was marked for the petitioner instead of counsel for respondent No.4. He further submits that, in any PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.03.20 12:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-10924-2001(O&M) case, nothing survives for adjudication in the present writ petition, as the grievance raised by the petitioner stands substantially redressed. He further submits that the amounts payable towards gratuity, leave encashment and provident fund have already been released to the petitioner and the pensionary benefits are also being regularly disbursed to him. 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 respondent No.4 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, in the event the statement made by learned counsel for respondent No.4 is found to be factually incorrect or the grievance of the petitioner is not fully redressed. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 16.03.2026 Puneet Chawla Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. :

Yes/No PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.03.20 12:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document