Indradeo Prasad Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5322 of 2019 ====================================================== Indradeo Prasad Singh Son of Late Ram Pralap Singh Retired Advisor Science and Technology Deptt., Govt. of Bihar, Patna, R/o village-Barah, P.O. Bhuapur, P.S. Belchhi, District-Patna-803211, present address-C/o Dr. Rakesh Kumar, Sai Carnation, Flat No. 104, Bahadurpur Road Beside Singh Petrol Pump, Kankarbag, P.O. Lohiya Nagar, P.S. Patrakar Nagar, Patna, Bihar800020 ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar and Ors through Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 2.

The Principal Secretary Department of Science and Technology, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3.

The Secretary Department of Science and Technology, Govt. of Bihar, Technology Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna-800 001 4.

The Bihar Council on Science and Technology (Department of Science and Technology) through its Project Director, Indira Gandhi Science Complex, Planetarium, Adalatganj, Bailey Road, Patna-800 001 5.

Deputy Secretary Department of Science and Technology, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 6.

The Accountant General (A and E) Bihar, Patna ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.

For the State :

Mr. Archana Meenakshee (GP 6) For the Accountant General: Mr. Rajnandan Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 15-09-2020 Nobody appears on behalf of the petitioner. The learned GP 6 and the learned counsel for the Accountant General are present.

The matter has been taken up through video conferencing.

By order dated 22.06.2020 the learned counsel for the petitioner was directed to file reply to the counter affidavit

Patna High Court CWJC No.5322 of 2019(9) dt.15-09-2020 2/2 particularly on the point that why the petitioner did not disclose the facts about pendency of criminal case against him in the writ petition and, therefore, tried to misled the court but even after several adjournments the learned counsel for the petitioner has not filed any reply to the counter affidavit. Since retiral benefits and 90% pension have already been ordered to be paid to the petitioner and remaining 10% pension amount is withheld in view of provision as contained in Rule 43(b) of Bihar Pension Rules, on account of pendency of the criminal case, I find that this writ petition has become infructuous.

This writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of as has become infructuous.

If the petitioner has got any grievance, the petitioner may again file a fresh writ petition.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) BKS/- U