IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.268 of 2010 BARUN KUMAR @ VARUN KUMAR S/O LATE BALDEO RAUT RESIDENT OF FLAT NO. T-4, SURYA TRIVENI APARTMENT, NEW PATLIPUTRA COLONY, P.S.- PATLIPUTRA, DISTRICT- PATNA SUB DIVISIONAL HORTICULTURE OFFICER (AT PRESENT POSTED AS EXECUTIVE OFFICER) BUILDING CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, GARDEN DIVISION, BIHAR, PATNA. . . . . . . RESPONDENT NO.8- APPELLANT. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH SECRETARY, BUILDING CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 2. THE SECRETARY, BUILDING CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 3. THE AGRICULTURE PRODUCTION COMMISSIONER, AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA 4. THE DIRECTOR, HORTICULTURE, GOVERNMENTT OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 5. THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, BUILDING CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, VISHVESHWARAIYA BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 6. THE UNDER SECRETARY, BUILDING CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, VISHVESHWARIYA BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 7. THE UNDER SECRETARY, AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. . . . . RESPONDENTS- RESPONDENT 1st SET. 8. VIKASH KUMAR SON OF RAJENDRA PRASAD CHOUDHARY RESIDENTOF SAUBHAGYA SHARMA PATH, BAILEY ROAD, P.O.- VETENARY COLLEGE PATNA-800014, PRESENTLY POSTED AS EXECUTIVE OFFICER, BUILDING CONSTRUCTION (GARDEN DIVISION) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. . . . . PETITIONER. . . RESPONDENTS 2nd SET. ----------- 2/ 04.02.2011 None appears on behalf of the appellant. Heard Mr. Chakradhari Saran Singh, learned Additional Advocate General No. 6. It appears that, by order dated 28.07.2009, issued by the State Government in the Department of Agriculture, the services of the writ petitioner (appellant herein) as Gardening Officer, Gardening Division, Building Construction Department, shall continue. The writ petitioner complained that this order dated 28.07.2009, was not being implemented. Learned counsel stated before the learned Single Judge that the same shall be implemented. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of with the direction to the State Government to implement the order dated 28.07.2009. It thus appears to us that the prayer of the writ petitioner has been upheld by the learned Single Judge. We do not see any cause of action in the present appeal. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal. Uday/ (S. K. Katriar, J.) (S. P. Singh, J.)