IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7938 of 2003 SATYA RANJAN PRASAD VERMA son of late Krishna Deo Narayan Verma, resident of Murari Bhawan, Mohall Bagmali, Hazipur, P.S. Hajipur, District Vaishali. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.Commissioner cum Secretary, Department of Rural Development Bihar, Patna. 3.The Commissioner Cum Secretary, Department of Water Resources, Bihar, Patna. 4.The Secretary, Department of Finance, Bihar, Patna. 5.The Chief Engineer, Department of Water Resources Purnea. 6.The Chief Engineer, Department of Irrigation, Bhagalpur. 7.The Chief Engineer, Department of Rural Development, Purnea. 8.The Superintending Engineer, Rural Development Special Circle, Purnea. 9.The Superintending Engineer, Water Canal and Research, Circle Purnea. 10.The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna. 11.Ramesh Prasad Singh son of name not known to petitioner, resident of Near Canal Circle Campus, Purnea, P.S. Purnea (H.O.) District Purnea, (retired as Head Clerk from Water Canal Circle, Purnea.) ----------- 3 14/12/2009 Heard counsel for the parties. Prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- “That this application is for issuance of appropriate writ/order/direction to quash the letter no.313 dated 29.6.2000 (Annexure-5) by which the pay scale of the petitioner has been reduced from 5000-150-8000 to 4500-125-7000 and further for commanding the Respondent Authorities to make the payment of arrears of salary in terms of the pay scale of 5000-15—8000 with all consequential benefits with effect from 1.1.96 and further to re-fix the 2 pension of the petitioner and to pay the arrears of pension if found due.” Counsel for the petitioner with reference to the aforementioned prayer would submit that in view of the stand taken by the respondents in the counter affidavit this writ application has become infructuous, inasmuch as, the entire claim of the petitioner has been admitted. Counsel would further rely in paragraph no.7 of the counter affidavit to contend that even the arrear for the period from 1.4.1997 to 31.7.1998 has been admitted. This Court, therefore, in the light of the stand taken by the respondents would hold that this writ application has become infructuous, but at the same time whatever has been stated in the counter affidavit has to be respected by the official respondents. With the aforementioned observation this writ application is disposed of as having become infructious. Abhay Kumar (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)