CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.7879 OF 1996 In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. BATESHWAR SHARMA SON OF LATE RAM BALESHWAR SHARMA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SHAMSHER NAGAR, POLICE STATION DAUDNAGAR, DISTRICT AURANGABAD. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE JOINT SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. ----------- For The Petitioner :SIYA RAM SHAHI For The Respondent : G. P - 9 P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILESH KUMAR SINHA -------- Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J. The petitioner through this writ application challenged the show cause notice issued to him as to why the entire pension be not withheld in terms of Rule 139 (a) (b) of the Bihar Pension Rules for the alleged misconduct on his part while working on the post of an Executive Engineer at the material time at the different place indicated in the letter no. 3957 dated 18.07.1996 (Annexure- 10). Petitioner submitted his show cause vide Annexure – 12. Thereupon considering the show cause, another show cause notice was issued vide order dated 04.08.1997 as contained in Annexure- 14. In the said show cause practically all the grounds have been repeated except the ground no. 2 (Ga) of the show cause notice dated 2 18.07.1996 (Annexure-10) which relates to the alleged irregular payment of Rs. 30,77,299/- to one M/s Hardev Singh a Contractor. In view of the short relevant facts as discussed in the following paragraphs no detailed facts of the case necessary to be taken note are discussed. Mr. Siya Ram Sahi the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of the writ application vide memo no. 1008 dated 19.02.1997 (Annexure- 13) the petitioner was allowed 90 percent of the admissible provisional pension. However, by subsequent order issued during the pendency of the writ application as per Memo no. 1348 dated 01.09.2009 vide Annexure –23 to the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner today, the balance pension of 10 percent was also sanctioned and as such, grievance of the petitioner with regard to the pension for which he issued the show cause as contained in Annexure-10 and 14 gets fulfilled and has now no grievance with regard to pension. Mr. Shahi has drawn the attention of the court to the order dated 2nd February 2010 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 13413 of 2009 vide Annexure - 22 filed by him with regard to his promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer with effect from 17.01.1981 and to the post of Chief Engineer in the Department of Water Resource with effect 3 from 1.12.1995 respectively. The writ application by the aforesaid order was allowed taking note of the stand of the State as disclosed in Paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit of the said case stating to the effect that the petitioner is entitled to the promotion of the aforesaid post with effect from 17.01.1981 and 1.12.1995 respectively. This court while allowing the writ application further observed :- “Needless to add that all orders of the authorities in the interregnum to the prejudice of the petitioner automatically stand vitiated”. Standing Council No. 21 appearing for the State submits that in view of the subsequent developments after filing of the writ application as noticed above, this writ application has become infructuous since the grievance of the petitioner with regard to the claim of pension has already been redressed through Annexure- 13 and 23 as referred to above. Considering the submission of the parties, there remains nothing to be adjudicated and as such, the writ application stands disposed of in view of the subsequent developments taking place in the writ application. No cost. Patna High Court Date 22nd of June 2010 N.A.F.R. Jagdish/ ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)