IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11618 of 2007 KRISHNA RAM, son of late Ram Lagan Ram, resident of Mohalla Ambedkar Colony, P.O. Mahendru, P.S. Sultanganj, District Patna … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Chief Secretary, Bihar 3. The Secretary, Human Resources Department, Bihar, Patna 4. The Director, Secondary Education, Bihar, Patna 5. The Director Provident Fund, Bihar 6. The District Provident Fund Officer, Patna 7. The District Education Officer, Patna 8. The Principal, B.N.R. Training School, Patna … Respondents ----------- 2. 25.8.2010 In view of the fact that the counsel for the petitioner is not present and the counsel for the State with reference to the following prayer of the petitioner: “(i) For respondents be directed to deposit the unpaid salary in general provident fund and admissible interest on the amount since he was entitled for salary.” would point out from paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit that the petitioner’s aforesaid grievance has been redressed, this Court must hold that the writ application has become infructuous. In this context the statement made in paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit is also recorded hereunder: “That without adverting to the different paragraphs of the writ 2 petition, the answering respondent at the very out sets of this counter affidavit humbly states and submits that the prayer made in the writ petition to deposit the unpaid salary in the G.P.F. account etc. only thereof being wholly misconceived and is fit to be rejected on the following grounds: i) That necessary order for correction of petitioner’s name in order no. 317 dated 22.5.1993, has finally been issued by the Director, Secondary Education vide memo no. 6998 dated 6.11.2008. ii) That accordingly thereafter the difference of amount of salary for the period from 1.4.1988 to 31.3.1993 has been deposited in the petitioner’s account in the following manner: In G.P.F. account – Rs. 50,952.00 Bearing Account No.Pat/EDN-18535 And In group Insurance - Rs. 2,400.00 Total - Rs. 53,352.00 (Rs. Fifty Three thousand and three hundred fifty two only).” It has to be also kept in mind that a copy of the counter affidavit was served on the counsel for the petitioner on 13.8.2010 but there is no denial of the 3 aforementioned averment on the part of the respondents. That being so, this application in view of the statement made in paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit must be held to have become infructuous. Recording the aforementioned submission, this application is dismissed as having become infructuous. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/