Patna High CourtCWJC/12996/2014disposed

Ganesh Sah v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2017-03-24Mr. Justice Ashwani Kumar Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12996 of 2014 ====================================================== Ganesh Sah S/o Late Lakshmi Sah Resident of Village Nayagaon, P.S. Sheyampur Bhatahan, District Sheohar.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

2. The District Education Officer, Sheohar.

3. The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Sheohar.

4. The District Provident Fund Officer, Sheohar.

5. The Block Education Extension Officer, Dumari Satsari, District Sheohar.

6. The Treasury Officer, Sheohar.

.... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Md. Anisur Rahman, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. M.K.Sinha, SC-1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 24-03-2017 The petitioner has filed the present writ application for issuance of a direction to the respondent to pay GPF amount along with statutory interest.

A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 2. Paragraph 5 of the counter-affidavit reads as under :

"5.

That the grievance of the petitioner in regard to payment of GPF amount with up to

Patna High Court CWJC No.12996 of 2014 (2) dt.24-03-2017 2/2 date statutory interest has already been redressed, which is evident from letter no.

dated 28.11.2014 issued by the Headmaster cum DDO, Government Middle School, Dumri of Dumri Katsarai Block of Sheohar District according to which under authority letter no. 593 dated 15.09.2014 issued by the GPF Officer, Sitamarhi the petitioner has been paid an amount of Rs.4,90,907/- vide Bill No. 58/2014-15 on 19.11.2014."

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the State that since sole grievance of the petitioner has already been redressed, the writ application has become infructuous. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the aforesaid contention made by the learned counsel for the State.

In that view of the matter, since the grievance of the petitioner has been redressed, the writ application is disposed of as infructuous.

(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.) Kanchan/- U