IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1356 of 2010 In (CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No. 11277/2009) Baidyanath Prasad @ Baijnath Prasad Srivastava, aged about 61 years, Son of Ayodhya Prasad, Resident of Village- Sareya, P.S. -Hussainganj, District-Siwan At Present Retired Peon of R.B.T.S. Homeo Pathic Medical College And Hospital, Muzaffarpur, Residing of Muzaffarpur. ----------------Petitioner/Appellant Versus 1. The State of Bihar through Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education, Family Welfare and Indigenous Medicine. 2. The Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education, Family Welfare and Indigenous Medicines. 3. Director, Deshi Chikitsha (Indigenous Medicines) Health Department, New Secretariat, Patna. 4. Principal, Govt. R.B.T.S. Homeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Muzaffarpur. 5. Sri B.N.S. Bharati, Principal Govt. R.B.T.S. Homeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Muzaffarpur. -----------------Respondents ---------------------------------- 2. 18.08.2011 Heard Mr. Ravindra Nath Verma, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Alok Kumar Rahi learned A.C. to A.A.G. No. 2. The present appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna has been filed against the order dated 29.07.2010 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 11277 of 2003 (Baidyanath Prasad @ Baijnath Prasad Shrivastava Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.). The writ petition has been filed for a direction 2 upon the respondents to pay the salary of the petitioner for the period of leave as well as for the duty period as admissible under the Rules. It was also mentioned in the writ petition at paragraph no. 2 that the petitioner had earlier filed C.W.J.C. No. 1448 of 1996 for acceptance of his joining report as also for payment of salary as admissible under the rules and the said writ petition had been disposed off by order dated 23.5.1997. When the case was heard on 29.7.2010 none had appeared on behalf of the petitioner whereas learned counsel for the State was present. The learned Single Judge noticed the fact that in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it was categorically stated that pursuant to the direction given by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1448 of 1996, order has been passed on 20.12.2003 wherein the period in question was sought to be regularized as leave without pay and further it had also been indicated that admissible salary for the period 23.5.97 to 15.6.97 had already been made. The writ petition was thus dismissed as having become infructuous. Learned counsel for the appellant states that his case had not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge, moreso for the reasons that he had not been able to appear and assist the Court while the matter was being heard. He points out that there were various infirmities in the order of the authority whereby the major portion of the 3 period was sought to be regularized as leave without pay. Be that as it may, we have gone through the materials on record as well as the pleadings in the writ petition. It is clear that earlier also the petitioner had moved in C.W.J.C. No. 1448 of 1996 for the same relief and the authorities had passed an order on 20.12.2003 pursuant to the order passed in the writ petition. The petitioner had been given all his dues pursuant to that order dated 20.12.2003 which not having been challenged has attained finality, and thus rightly the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition as having become infructuous since no further relief could have been granted. For the reasons aforementioned we do not find any infirmity in the order under appeal and the present Letters Patent Appeal stands dismissed. However there shall be no order as to costs. Anand Kr. (S. K. Katriar, J.) (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)