← Library
Patna High CourtCWJC/15507/2012disposed

Mukhlal Pd. v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2018-09-14Mr. Justice Jyoti Saran2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15507 of 2012 ====================================================== Mukhlal Pd. S/O Prahlad Prasad Resident Of Village- Dhumnagar, Kachahari Tola, P.S- Nautan, District- West Champaran. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Health, Govt. Of Bihar Patna.

2. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Health, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna.

3. The Director In Chief, Health Services, Bihar, Patna.

4. The Collector-Cum- District Magistrate, West Champaran, Bettiah.

5. The Civil Surgeon-Cum- Chief Medical Officer, West Champaran, Bettiah.

6. The In- Charge Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Bhitaha, District- West Champaran.

7. The In- Charge, Additional Primary Health Centre, Dhanaha (Madhubani), District- West Champaran.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Prashant Pratap, GP 6 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER 14-09-2018 Heard Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Gyan Shankar, learned AC to GP 2 for the State.

The petitioner prays for payment of arrears of salary with effect from July, 2011 together with the amount of subsistence allowance for the period 17.09.2011 to 18.10.2011. Mr. Gyan Shankar, learned State Counsel, invites the attention of this Court to the order dated 26.10.2012 of the Civil Sergeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, West Champaran at Bettiah

Patna High Court CWJC No.15507 of 2012 (2) dt.14-09-2018 enclosed with the counter affidavit to submit that the grievance of the petitioner has been redressed as the order in respect of payment of dues in question has been issued.

There is no rejoinder to the counter affidavit which would mean that the benefit has been given to the petitioner. Even otherwise, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar informs that the petitioner has since deceased and no steps have been taken by the legal heirs for seeking substitution.

Taking note of the position reflecting from the counter affidavit, the writ petition is disposed of.

(Jyoti Saran, J) Archana/Surendra U