The State Of Bihar And ORS v. Kapildeo Prasad Singh And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.1406 of 2014 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 201267 of 2012 ======================================================

1. The State Of Bihar

2. The Joint Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna

3. The Chief Engineer (Mechanical) Public Health Engineering, Depuartment, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna

4. The Superintending Engineer, (Mechanical) Public Health Engineering, Department, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna

5. The Executive Engineer, Public Health Mechanical Division, Muzaffarpur .... .... Appellant/s

Versus

1. Kapildeo Prasad Singh Son of Sri Kripal Singh Resident of Village + P.O.- Manjhaul, P.S.- Manjhaul, District - Begusarari

2. Pramod Kumar No.1 Son of Late Singheshwar Prasad Singh Resident of Village - Brahmpur, P.S.- Brahampura, District - Muzaffarpur .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Anjani Kumar, AAG-6 With Mr. Deepak Sahay Jamuar For the Respondent/s : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE I.A. ANSARI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE I.A. ANSARI ) 13-01-2015 Heard Mr. Ajnani Kumar, learned Additional Advocate General No.6, appearing on behalf of the appellants. Learned Additional Advocate General states that after filing of this appeal, matter has been deliberated in view of the order, dated 16.5.2013, passed in CWJC No. 21267 of 2012, whereby directions were issued by a learned single Judge of this

Court to make payment of dues of the writ petitioner- respondents for the periods from 01.06.2002 to 30.11.2006 and the Government has taken a decision to make payment of the dues of the writ petitioner-respondents in terms of the directions, which have so been given. This fact, according to the learned Additional Advocate General, stands recorded in letter No. 742 dated 25.9.2014 issued by the Executive Engineer, PHED, Muzaffarpur addressed to Mr. Anjani Kumar, learned Additional Advocate General No.6.

The fact that the decision, as pointed out by the learned Additional Advocate General, has been taken by the Government and directions have been issued accordingly is not in dispute before us.

In view of the above, this appeal, as rightly pointed out, has become infructuous and is hereby disposed of accordingly. Let letter No. 742 aforementioned be maintained as part of the record of this appeal.

(I. A. Ansari, J) (Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) ArunKumar/- U