IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1232 of 2005 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER-CUM- SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DIRECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION AND REHABILITATION, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. … RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS Versus SAKALDEEP SINGH, SON OF SHRI RADHA KRISHNA SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-DHABAULI, P.S. SOUR BAZAR, DISTRICT SAHARSA. …PETITIONER-RESPONDENT . ----------- 5. 14.12.2009 Heard Mr. Sanjay Prakash Verma, learned Assistant Counsel to Government Advocate No.5 for the appellants, and Mr. Ravindra Nath Dubey for the respondent. The State of Bihar has preferred this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letter Patent of High Court of Judicature at Patna and expresses a grievance with respect to the interim order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 13.10.2004, passed in CWJC No.1300 of 2004 (Sakaldeep Singh Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.), whereby part of the order impugned therein has been stayed. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. It appears that the petitioner at the relevant point of time was functioning as a Head clerk in the Land Acquisition Department, Kosi Project, Saharsa. A departmental proceeding was initiated against him for irregularities in distribution of the amount of compensation under Rule 43(b) of Bihar Pension - 2 - Rules and arrogating to himself a portion of the same. By the impugned order, the petitioner has been deprived of the entire amount of pension, gratuity, and leave encashment leading to the writ petition. By order dated 13.10.2004, it has been directed that part of the order, as contained in the impugned order, whereby and whereunder the amount of gratuity and the amount of leave encashment have been withheld shall remain stayed. We are informed at the Bar that the writ petitioner has withdrawn the amounts of gratuity and leave encashment. We do not agree with the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge and, therefore, vacate the same. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. hr ( S. K. Katriar ) ( Kishore K. Mandal )