IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.1687 of 2011
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 4344 of 2007
With
Interlocutory Application No. 7762 of 2011
In
Letters Patent Appeal No.1687 of 2011
======================================================
Nawal Kishore Singh, S/o Late Parma Nand Singh, R/o Village + Post-
Shakara, P.S.- G.B. Nagar, District- Siwan.
.... .... Petitioner-Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Chief Secretary, Old Secretariat Building,
Patna.
2. Secretary, Finance Department, State of Bihar.
3. Secretary, Human Resources Department (Secondary Education), Bihar
4. Director, Secondary Education Board, Budha Marg, Patna
5. The District Education Officer, Siwan
.... .... Respondents/Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant : Mr. Sarva Deo Singh, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Awdhesh Kumar Pandey, G.A.-9
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
2. 17-11-2011 Interlocutory Application No. 7762 of 2011:
The delay of 11 days occurred in filling the Letters
Patent Appeal is condoned.
Interlocutory Application stands disposed of.
2 Patna High Court LPA No.1687 of 2011 (2) dt.17-11-2011
2/2
Letters Patent Appeal No.1687 of 2011:
The appellant, writ petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 4344
of 2007, has preferred this Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters
Patent so far as the learned single Judge has observed, “The
petitioner may, on the basis of his approval of service from
October, 1978, can now get his revised retirement benefit by
treating the aforesaid period towards the qualifying service
but, nothing more will be admissible to him.”
Learned advocate Mr. Sarvdeo Singh has appeared
for the appellant. He has submitted that the aforesaid observation
was uncalled for as the appellant is still continuing in service. He
has further submitted that the aforesaid observation is capable of
being interpreted to deny increment, promotion etc. to the
appellant. He has submitted that the retiral benefits was not the
subject matter of the writ petition. In fact, pending the petition the
grievance of the petitioner was redressed. On the date of the
impugned order the cause of action did not survive.
In above view of the matter, learned advocate Mr.
Singh seeks leave to withdraw the writ petition.
Leave is granted.
The writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn.
Letters Patent Appeal stands disposed of.
(R.M. Doshit, CJ)
(Birendra Prasad Verma, J)
Pawan/-