2. 21.02.2013 passed in CWP Sharma vs. The State of Punjab and others continued on the post based on interim order and having retired, held thus: A Division Bench of this Court, vide judgment dated 21.02.2013 passed in CWP-837-2005 titled as Sharma vs. The State of Punjab and others continued on the post based on interim order and having retired, held thus: “The petitioner was appointed as Sanitary Inspector, Municipal Committee, Ludhiana and he ear promotions from time to time. In the year 1994, he was promoted as Superintendent Vaccination. Thereafter, Division Bench of this Court, vide judgment dated 2005 titled as Sudarshan Kumar Sharma vs. The State of Punjab and others in case of petitioner having continued on the post based on interim order and having retired, held thus: “The petitioner was appointed as Sanitary Inspector, Municipal Committee, Ludhiana and he earned promotions from time to time. In the year 1994, he was promoted as Superintendent Vaccination. Thereafter, PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.07.03 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. in the year 1997, he was given promotion to the post of Registrar (Births & Deaths), Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana vide orders dated 28.5.1997. Subsequently, show cause notice dated 16.1.2003 was issued to him which culminated in his reversion from the post of Registrar (Births & Deaths). Challenging these orders, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition. The petitioner also prayed for interim stay of operation of the reversion orders. Interim orders were passed in his favour by this Court. Under the umbrella of the said stay orders, the petitioner continued to work as Registrar (Births & Deaths) and has since retired as well from that post on 31.12.2009. As the petitioner, on account of stay order, continued to work as Registrar (Births & Deaths) and has even retired from that post, it is not necessary to go into the validity of the orders impugned in this petition. Retiral benefits, if not paid, shall be released to the petitioner as if the petitioner had retired as Registrar (Births & Deaths). The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.” 3. Learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 4 has been unable to controvert the factual position and draw out any distinctive aspects in the afore-referred judgment or cite any contrary one. 4. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of in terms of the judgment passed in Sudarshan Kumar Sharma(supra). PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.07.03 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.