Patna High CourtCWJC/14568/2015disposed

Chandra Shekhar Prasad v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2017-05-23Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14568 of 2015 =========================================================== Chandra Shekhar Prasad, S/o Late Shyam Bihari Prasad, at present resident of Saraswati Enclave Apartment, Flat No.103, Ashok Nagar, Road No.1, Kankarbagh, Patna-2.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Principal Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3. Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Vishveshvaraia Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.

4. The Executive Engineer, Vaishali Road Division, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, at Hajipur.

5. The District Magistrate, Vaishali, at Hajipur.

6. Accountant General, Bihar, Patna.

.... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

None For the State :

Ms. Nutan Sahay, AC to AAG 12 For the Accountant General :

Mr. Binod Kumar Labh, Advocate =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 23-05-2017 Nobody appears on behalf of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the State and the Accountant General are present and have assisted the Court.

2. The matter has been listed during vacation with prior notice to learned counsel that if they do not propose to conduct their matter during the Annual Vacation, a slip be filed making such request. No slip is available on record.

3. From the counter affidavit, it appears that 90%

Patna High Court CWJC No.14568 of 2015 dt.23-05-2017 2/2 provisional pension has been sanctioned to the petitioner as departmental proceedings are still pending and with regard to the rest, leave encashment for 300 days, gratuity and commutation of pension has also been paid. Further, benefit of ACP has also been granted to the petitioner.

4. As such payments have been made during the pendency of the writ petition and there being no rejoinder to the counter affidavit by the petitioner, the Court can only presume that the grievance of the petitioner, for the present, stands redressed.

5. In view thereof, the writ petition stands disposed off. (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J) Anjani/- AFR/NAFR U