IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5135 of 2003 RAM KRISHNA LALL S/o Late Jogendra Prasad, resident of Mohalla Langertoli, P.O. Bankipur, P.S. Kadamkuan, Patna-4. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2.Director of Industry, Industry Department New Secretariat, Patna. 3.District Development Commissioner, Bikas Bhawan, Samastipur. 4.Industry Development Commissioner, Industry Department, New Secretariat, Patna. 5.Deputy Collector-cum-Assistant Project Officer, District Rural Development Authority, (DRDA) Samastipur. 6.Accountant General, Bihar, Patna. 7.District Treasury Officer, Samastipur. ----------- 3 13/8/2009 No one appears for the petitioner. Counsel for the State is present. Prayer in this writ application is for payment of retirement benefit in the shape of arrears of second time bound promotion granted after retirement of the petitioner vide order dated 22.11.1998 under the orders of Deputy Development Commissioner, Samastipur with effect from 3.4.87 to 31.12.96 and arrears of difference of pay due to fifth pay revision from 1.1.96to 31.12.96. From the counter affidavit of respondent no.2 it would appear that the benefit of second time bound promotion amounting to Rs. 40,983/- has already been paid to the petitioner through Bank Draft dated 31.3.2004 which was received by the petitioner on 4.5.2004 as stands supported by acknowledgment of the petitioner vide Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. It has also been explained in the counter affidavit that payment of differential 2 arrears salary on account of fifth pay revision was not admissible to the petitioner because the government decision in the resolution dated 8.2.99 was to make payment of actual financial benefit with effect from 1.4.1997 and since the petitioner had retired prior to that date, i.e, 31.12.1996 he could not have been given benefit of revised pay scale. In the counter affidavit it has also been clearly asserted that all the retiral claim of the petitioner has been sanctioned and paid to the petitioner which has also been acknowledged in writing by the petitioner on 4.5.2004 vide Annexure-C to the counter affidavit. There is also no rejoinder affidavit on behalf of the petitioner controverting such specific stand taken by the respondents in their counter affidavit and as such this writ application must be deemed to have become infructuous on account of redressal of legitimate grievance of the petitioner. That being so, this application is dismissed as having become infructuous. Abhay Kumar (Mihir Kumar Jha, J)