IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No. 11640 of 2003. ======================================================= Suo Motu PIL in the matter relating to class of persons of the Govt. Companies of Bihar, who have not received their salaries, who have retired without receiving their retirement benefits and in the matter of the heirs of the above categories of persons who died. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, 2. Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, 3. Bihar State Construction Corporation, 4. Bihar State Small Scale Industries Development Corporation, 5. Bihar State Handloom and Chemical Development Corporation, 6. Bihar State Agro Industries Development Corporation, 7. Bihar State Medicine and Chemical Development Corporation, 8. Bihar State Leather Development Corporation, 9. Bihar State Handloom and Handicrafts Corporation, 10. Bihar State Electronic Corporation, 11. Bihar State Vastralya Corporation, 12. Bihar State Fruit and Vegetable Development Corporation, 13. Bihar State Seed Development Corporation, 14. Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation, 15. Bihar State Khadi Gram Udyog Board ……………. Respondents, 16. The heirs of deceased employees of the State Govt. Companies who died without receiving salaries or retrial benefits …………………………………… Proforma respondents, 17. The Registrar of Companies, Bihar ……………. Respondent. ================================================= Appearance: For the petitioner: None. For the respondents: Mr Anil Kr. Singh, Advocate. ======================================================= CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN 2 ORAL ORDER (Per : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 63. 31.08.2010. This is a Public Interest Litigation initiated by this Court suo motu. The subject matter was the payment of terminal benefits to the employees, who had retired from the service of the State Corporations/Boards. The issue was whether the State Government was under an obligation to pay terminal benefits to the retired employees of the State Corporations/Boards. The matter has traveled further by numerous orders. A committee was formed. Fund was provided by the State Government and the amount of terminal benefits to the concerned employees was distributed by the committee. By order dated 17th September 2010 made by this Court (Coram : Justice Dr. J.N. Bhatt, CJ & Justice Kishore K. Mandal, J), the direction was issued to wind up „Justice Uday Sinha Committee‟. The Bench proceeded to make the following order: “In view of the aforesaid direction, Justice Uday Sinha Committee shall stand wound up for the time being. Accordingly, the present petition at this stage will stand disposed of subject to the revival, if any.” It appears that the same subject matter was seized of by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 488 of 2002 and Writ petition (Civil) No. 194 of 2003. The said Writ Petitions were disposed of on 09.08.2010 in the following terms: 3 “The issues involved in these cases basically are legal issues. They will have to be gone into by the concerned High Courts. This Court has so far monitored the matter to its best possible ability. In the circumstances, we request the High Court to examine these matters in the PIL and pass appropriate orders in these PILs as expeditiously as possible. The Registry is directed to forward copy of this order to the Registrar General of the High Court. The attention of the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the High Court may be drawn to this Order. We request the High Court to consider the orders passed by this Court giving appropriate directions from time to time in these cases. We also direct the High Court to consider making interim payments to the affected persons including medical treatment.” Pursuant to the above order, the matter is placed before us. We may refer to the numerous orders made in this petition from time to time and the fact that the State Government did place the funds at the disposal of „Justice Uday Sinha Committee‟ to be distributed amongst the retired employees of the State Corporations. In our opinion, in above view of the matter, the cause of action does not survive. The legal issues raised have become academic. The petition, therefore, is not required to be revived. It is, however, observed that any 4 individual, if aggrieved, will have liberty to approach the appropriate forum. Order accordingly. Dilip ( R. M. Doshit, CJ) ( Jyoti Saran, J)