IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5444 of 2003 CHANDRA DEO SINGH, son of Late Saguni Singh, resident of Village-Motha, Police Station-Arwal, District-Arwal ( Jehanabad). Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2.The Director of Agriculture, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. 3.The District Magistrate, Arwal (Jehanabad). 4.The District Officer of Agriculture, Jehanabad. 5.The Block Development Officer, Kaler, District- Arwal. ----------- 3 13/8/2009 Heard the parties. In this writ application prayer of the petitioner is confined for payment of salary for the period 25.7.1989 to 31.10.2002 and the differential pay for the period 1.4.1997 to 31.1.1999. A counter affidavit has been filed wherein the respondent-District Magistrate, Arwal has taken the following stand:- “That it is respectfully stated that it is not true that the petitioner has not got the salary from 25.7.1989 to 31.10.2002. The petitioner had received the regular salary from 25.7.1989 to 31.10.2001 but only the difference of pay on account of pay revision and time bound promotion from 25.7.1989 to January 1999 has not been paid to him. The petitioner has approached Hon’ble Court for getting only the difference of pay. He has been retired on 31.10.2001 and he has got all retirement benefit. That it is stated that the difference of pay on account of pay revision and 2nd time bound promotion was due to him and this amount has been paid like this. (a)The difference of salary from 25.7.1989 to March 1997 of Rs. 35,429/- ( Thirty five thousand four hundred twenty nine only) paid vide cheque no. 3775735 dated 23.2.2003. (b)The arrear bill of difference of pay on account of pay revision from April 1997 2 to January 1999 Rs. 8390/- (Eight thousand three hundred ninty) only paid vide cheque no. 3950710 dated 6.2.2004.” From the aforementioned stand of the respondent-State in its counter affidavit and not controverted by the petitioner, it would appear that the legitimate amount of salary as claimed in this writ application has already been paid to the petitioner and therefore this writ application, in fact, has become infructuous. That being So, this application is dismissed as having become infructuous. Abhay Kumar (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)