IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3016 of 2007 Ajab Lal Paswan, son of late Saudagar Paswan, resident of village Bandowar, P.S. Neema Chandpura, District Begusarai … Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Secretary (Primary Education) Bihar, Patna 3. The Director (Primary Education), Bihar, Patna 4. The Collector cum Chairman, District Education Establishment Committee, Begusarai 5. The District Superintendent of Education, Begusarai 6. The District Treasury Officer, Begusarai 7. The Block Education Extension Officer, Matihani, Begusarai 8. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna … Respondents ---------------------------------- 3. 25.8.2011 Having regard to the fact that the petitioner had died during the pendency of this writ application the prayer made in I.A.No. 5726/2011 for substituting him by his wife Madhuri Devi is hereby allowed, inasmuch as right to sue will still survive to the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased writ petitioner. In the counter affidavit filed today learned counsel for the State has explained that all the claims of the deceased petitioner had been settled in his life time and in order to support them he has also enclosed documents. It has also been explained that after the death of the petitioner, the wife, the substituted petitioner, is also being paid family pension. In that view of the matter, this writ application has become infructuous. Learned counsel for the substituted petitioner would, however, contend that the husband, the original petitioner, was wrongly retired on the basis of year of birth of 1927 whereas the fact is that the year of birth of the husband of the substituted petitioner was 1932. 2 This Court would fail to understand the purpose of such submission on behalf of the wife, the substituted petitioner, inasmuch as the husband original petitioner who was allegedly subjected to his so called forcible retirement on the basis of his incorrect date of birth did not complain about it in his life time though he was alive for almost next 20 years and in fact had also not raised the aforesaid issue in the present writ application filed on 9.3.2007. That being so, the substituted petitioner cannot raise any such issue which was not raised by the original petitioner in his life time and to that extent the substituted petitioner can only claim the relief which was being pressed by the original petitioner. As indicated above, all the payments as claimed by the original petitioner in this writ application have already been made and therefore, nothing would survive for adjudication in this case. This application is, accordingly, dismissed as having become infructuous. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/