Vikram Kumar Ranjan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10641 of 2021 ====================================================== Vikram Kumar Ranjan S/o Ramesh Ram R/o Village- Gijas, P.s.- Saraiya, District- Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 2.

The Director, ICDS, Bihar at Patna 3.

The District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur, Bihar 4.

The District Programme Officer, Muzaffarpur, Bihar 5.

The Chief Development and Project Officer, Kanti, Muzaffarpur, 6.

The District Provident Officer, Muzaffarpur 7.

The Accountant General Bihar at Patna 8.

Sarita Kumari @ Gita Kumari D/o Bindeshwar Das R/o Village- Jawaj, P.s.- Mahanar, District- Vaishali at presently R/o Purani Jakkanpur, Ramdayal Path, G.P.O., Patna, P.s.- Jakkanpur, District- Patna. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ramendra Kumar Bharti, Advocate.

For the Respondent No.8 :

Mr. Anil Kumar singh, Adovate.

For the Respondent State :

Mr. Madan Prasad Singh No.2. AC to AG.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 15-11-2022 Heard Mr. Ramendra Kumar Bharti learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Anil Kumar singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.8, and Mr. Madan Prasad Singh No.2, (AC to AG) for the State.

At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of the writ application, the entire terminal dues of the erstwhile employee has been restored upon the respondent no.8 and the son of the deceased employee

Patna High Court CWJC No.10641 of 2021(2) dt.15-11-2022 2/2 has also been granted compassionate appointment and as such the matter has become infructuous.

On the other hand, referring to the averments made in the counter affidavit, learned counsel for the respondent no.8, submits that the claim of the petitioner was considered, and the same has been rejected.

Be that as it may, it appears that the present writ application has become infructuous.

Accordingly, the present writ application stands dismissed as infructuous.

(Harish Kumar, J) manoj/- U