IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.62 of 2006 ------- 1. State of Bihar, through Commissioner-cum-Secretary Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar. 2. Deputy Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. Under Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Director, Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation Department, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 5. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Koshi Project, Saharsa. ….. Appellants/ Respondents Versus Amrendra Prasad Yadav, son of Sri Deo Narayan Yadav, resident of village + P.O. Mohanpur Choumukh, Police Station Bihariganz, District Madhepura. At present posted as Senior Accounts Clerk at Special Land Acquisition Office, Koshi Project at Saharsa. … Respondent/ Petitioner. ----------- For the appellants : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Junior counsel to Additional Advocate General II For the respondent : Mr. A. Kumar, Advocate -------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ------ Dated, the 03rd December, 2008 We heard the government counsel and perused the impugned order. 2. The government counsel does not dispute that at the time of filing of the writ petition, the respondent (original writ petitioner) was in employment. He also does not dispute that in the - 2 - writ petition, the petitioner challenged two show cause notices and also prayed for regularisation of his service against the post of Senior Accounts Clerk. It is also admitted by him that it was during the pendency of the writ petition that petitioner’s service came to be terminated which fact was brought to the notice by the writ petitioner through interlocutory application. 3. In the backdrop of these facts and also in view of the fact that the similar controversy has been referred to the Full Bench in writ petition (CWJC No.1242/2003), if the Single Judge stayed the operation of the order of termination which came to be issued during the pendency of writ petition, we are satisfied that no interference is called for in the impugned order dated 05th January, 2004 as the order is interlocutory in nature. 4. We have refrained from considering the diverse aspects on merit, since the writ petition is pending before the Single Judge and consideration of those aspects by us would have affected the hearing of the writ petition by the Single Judge. 5. All in all, Letters Patent Appeal is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed with no order as to cost. R.M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J. Sunil