IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5303 of 1991 1. BINOD KUMAR, S/O SRI RAJENDRA PRASAD, R/O VILLAGE AND P.S.-SOHSARAI, DISTRICT-NALANDA. 2. ANUGRAH NARAIN SINGH, S/O SRI JAMUNA SINGH, R/O VILLAGE-SIMRI-BIGHA, P.S.- WARSALIGANJ, DISTRICT-NAWADA. 3. DAYANAND KUMAR, S/O SRI RAM BACHAN SHARMA, R/O VILLAGE-SULTANPUR, P.S.-BHAGWANPUR, DISTRICT-JEHANABAD. 4. PRAMOD KUMAR, S/O SRI BAIJU MAHTO, R/O VILLAGE-MIR-BIGHA, P.S.-CHAKWAI, DISTRICT- NAWADA. 5. SAIRA PRAVEEN, W/O MD.MANSOOR ALAM, R/O VILLAGE AND P.S.-WARSALIGANJ, DISTRICT- NAWADA. 6. BIRENDRA KUMAR CHAUBEY, S/O SRI RAM LAKHAN CHAUBEY, R/O VILLAGE-GOSAINDASPUR, P.S.- CHAMPANAGAR, DISTRICT-BHAGALPUR. 7. BIJAY PRASAD SINGH, S/O AMBIKA PRASAD SINGH, R/O VILLAGE-MOHANPUR, P.S.-LAKHISARAI, DISTRICT-MUNGER. 8. MANOJ KUMAR, S/O SRI RAJ BIHARI SHARMA, R/O VILLAGE-MAI, P.S.-KHIJARSARAI, DISTRICT- GAYA. 9. SMT. JANKI DEVI, D/O SRI KEDAR SAO, R/O VILLAGE-JHALI, P.S.-GOBINDPUR, DISTRICT- NAWADA. 10. SMT. PREM LATA DEVI, D/O SRI HALDHAR SINGH, R/O VILLAGE-TIKLIPAR, P.S.- BIHARSHARIF, DISTRICT-NALANDA. 11. UPENDRA SHARMA, S/O SRI TAPESHWAR SHARMA, R/O VILLAGE AND P.S.-GOH, DISTRICT- AURANGABAD. 12. YATINDRA NATH SINGH, S/O SRI JAGGARNATH SINGH, R/O VILLAGE-MARSARAI, P.S.-SHIVSAGAR, DISTRICT-ROHTAS. 13. ARBIND PRASAD SINGH, S/O STARAM SINGH, R/O VILLAGE AND P.S.-SATGAWAN, DISTRICT- HAZARIBAGH. ………………PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE HEALTH COMMISSIONER, GOVT. OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIATE, PATNA. 3. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR, HEALTH SERVICES, MAGADH DIVISION, GAYA. 4. THE CIVIL SURGEON-CUM-CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER, NAWADA. 5. THE COLLECTOR, NAWADA. ………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 2 8 19.03.2010 When the writ application was taken up on 22.1.1992 learned counsel for the petitioners informed the Court that he had no instructions in the matter. In that situation the application was admitted for hearing. Petitioners have filed this writ application for a direction to the respondents for payment of their salary which was said to have been stopped on non est ground. No one appears for the petitioners to inform this Court that the grievance of the petitioners still subsists even after passage of more than 18 years. The writ application is accordingly dismissed as not pressed. Arvind/ (J. N. Singh, J.)