IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.1528 of 2009 2 16.9.2009 Siya Sharan Verma son of Late Nand Kishore Prasad Verma R/O Village Budhaul, P.S. Amas, PO Neema Budhaul, Distt. Gaya ..... Petitioner VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Deptt. Of Irrigation, Government of Bihar, Patna 3. The Deputy Secretary, Deptt. Of Irrigation, Government of Bihar, Patna 4. The Deputy Collector, Revenue Division, Gaya 5. The Deputy Collector, Revenue Division, Aurangabad .... Opposite Parties. -------- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the averments made in this restoration application. It appears that the writ petitioner Siya Sharan Verma died on 30.11.2008 and it has been indicated that if the writ petition bearing CWJC No.1750 of 2002 is restored to its original file, steps may be taken for substituting the name of the deceased petitioner with his heirs and legal representatives. The writ petition was dismissed on 10.11.2008 for non-prosecution as nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioner but the order records the main issue and the relevant facts. From the facts it is clear that once the writ petitioner was found guilty of embezzlement and on that account he was posted not on the post of Collector Peon, earlier occupied by him, but on the post of Purcha Peon. At that time both the posts carried 2 same pay scale but subsequently the post of Collector Peon was placed under a higher pay scale and hence, this Court kept the writ petition pending for deciding whether the petitioner had a right to be posted back on the post of Collector Peon. Subsequently, as per counter affidavit, same pay scale has been introduced for both the posts with effect from 1.1.1996. In that view of the matter, in a writ petition filed in the year 2002 there could be no question of granting any relief to the petitioner when on account of his continued posting as Purcha Peon he was not suffering any injury. Now, when the original writ petitioner is dead, his claim of being entitled for posting against post of Collector Peon is found to be a cause of action which cannot exists after his death. No useful purpose will be served by allowing the prayer for restoration and troubling the heirs of the deceased petitioner through substitution. In that view of the matter, the prayer for restoration is rejected. (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) sk