IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13281 of 2006 SARANGDHAR PRASAD son of Late Goreshwar Prasad, resident of village-Madhodih, P.O.Madhodin, P.S.-Tarapur, Dist.-Munger, corresponding address: Resident of village-Semaria, P.O.-Mathura Sahebganj P.S.-Belhar, Dist.-Banka, retired from the post of Trained Mali at Bijikhorwa, Banka. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.The Commissioner-cum-Secrertary, Water Resources Department, State of Bihar, Sichayee Bhawan, Patna 3.The Under Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Water Resources (Irrigation)Department, New Secretariat, Patna. 4.The Chief Engineer, Water Resources (Irrigation) Department, Bhagalpur 5.The Superintending Engineer, Water Resources (Irrigation Anchal) Department Habali Kharakpur 6.The Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Bijikhorwa, Banka 7.Sub.Divisional Officer, Irrigation Department, Bijikhorwa, Banka 8.The Assistant Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, Bijikhorwa, Banka 9.The Accountant General, Bihar, Birchand Patel Path, Patna. ----------- 2. 22.4.2011. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Satyapal Narottam, A.C. to G.A.-VIII, appearing on behalf of the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not in a position to get an up-to-date instruction from his client. In this case a supplementary counter affidavit has been filed in the year 2008 on behalf of respondent nos. 2 to 8. In paragraph 5 of the said affidavit it has been indicated that final pension order has already been sent by Accountant General, Bihar, Patna to Treasury Officer, Banka on 3.2.2007. However, in view of the fact that the petitioner is not in touch with learned counsel for 2 the petitioner, he (learned counsel for the petitioner) is not in a position to address the court on such point. However, in view of the averments made in paragraph 5 of the supplementary counter affidavit, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is every possibility that the petitioner has already received payment. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the court is of the opinion that there is no need to further keep the matter pending before this court. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. It is made clear that the disposal of the writ petition may not be treated as a hurdle to the petitioner at subsequent stage. Md.S. ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)