Raghu Nandan Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5344 of 2016 ====================================================== Raghu Nandan Singh Son of Sri Jay Prakash Singh Resident of Chhoti Kelawari Purani Bazar Police Station - Kotwali, District Munger. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Bihar, Patna. 2.

The Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3.

The District Magistrate, Kishanganj.

4.

The District Programme Officer Establishment Kishanganj. 5.

The District Programme Officer , Block Thakurganj, District Kishanganj 6.

The Block Development Officer, Block Thakurganj. 7.

The Block Education Extension Officer, Kishanganj. 8.

The Mukhiya , Gram Panchayat Raj Patharia, Block Thakurganj, District Kishanganj.

9.

The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj Patharia, Block Thakurganj, District Kishanganj.

10.

Brahmlal Singh son of Shri Charan Lal Singh resident of villageLebhiabitta, P.S thakurganj, District Kishanganj. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Anil Kumar Choudhary, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Sunil Kumar Mandal, SC-3 Mr. Bipin Kumar, AC to SC-3 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 21-01-2025 Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Learned Counsel for the State.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for the following relief/s:- I. For commanding the concerned respondent authority for concluding the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner in the year 2010 itself, though the petitioner has already superannuated from service w.e.f. 31.01.2015.

Patna High Court CWJC No.5344 of 2016(3) dt.21-01-2025 2/2 II. For directing the concerned respondent for payment of all admitted dues to the petitioner, who has already superannuated from service w.e.f. 31.01.2015, but due to pending of the departmental proceeding, not a single penny has been given to the petitioner, though, petitioner has not other source of income to maintain his livelihood.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that though, during pendency of the writ petition, departmental proceeding has been concluded, but till date, arrears of retiral dues has not been received by the petitioner.

4. Learned Counsel for the State submits that the main grievance of the petitioner has already been ended as departmental proceeding has been concluded.

5. In the light of the submissions made by the parties, this Court is of the view that since, departmental proceeding has already been concluded, this writ petition has now become infructuous. Hence, this writ petition stands disposed off granting liberty to the petitioner that for demand of his arrears of retiral dues, he may file another writ petition as and when cause of action shall arise.

(Dr. Anshuman, J) Divyansh/- U