Patna High CourtCWJC/8782/2015disposed

Upendra Kumar v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2018-11-28Mr. Justice Dr. Anil Kumar Upadhyay2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8782 of 2015 ====================================================== Upendra Kumar Son of Sri Tulsi Mistry Resident of village - Pakri, P.O. Dadar, P.S. Goh, District - Aurangabad ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Primary Education, Human Resources Department, New Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna

2. The District Magistrate, Aurangabad

3. The District Programme officer - Cum - District Superintendent of Education ( Esttd. ) District - Aurangabad

4. The Block Development officer, Goh Block

5. The Block Education Extension officer, Goh Block

6. The Headmaster, Rajkiya Madhya Vidyalaya, Kurwan, P.O. Kurwan, Block Goh, District Aurangabad

7. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Chapuk, P.S. Goh, District - Aurangabad ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Shambhu Sharan Singh, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Manish Kumar, AC to AAG-6 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL ORDER 28-11-2018 The petitioner has precisely filed the present writ petition for payment of salary.

On behalf of the respondents a counter affidavit has been filed in which stand has been taken that the grievance of the petitioner has already been redressed and payments have been made as stated in para-9 of the counter affidavit which is quoted below for ready reference:

"9. That in view of that, the Block Education Officer, Goh, Aurangabad has been submitted a report vide letter no. 262

Patna High Court CWJC No.8782 of 2015(2) dt.28-11-2018 2/2 dated 15.09.2016 from that the due honorarium of the petitioner has already been paid. A photo copy of letter no. 262 dt. 15.09.2016 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-C to this counter affidavit."

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has to verify the fact from his client.

Considering the statements made in paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit, there is no point to keep the writ petition pending. It is accordingly disposed of.

In the event the statements made in para-9 is incorrect, liberty shall be available to the petitioner to file an affidavit for revival of the writ petition.

With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of.

(Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) spandey/- U