IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1028 of 2011 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 13897 of 2004. ====================================================== Dr. Sachidanand Rai, son of late Ishwar Rai, R/o Village Ishwarpura, P.S. Sahar, District Bhojpur .... .... Petitioner / Appellant Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Department of Medical Education, Family Welfare and Indigenous Medicine, Govt. of Bihar, Patna, 2. Dy. Secretary, Dept. of Health (Medical Education, Family Welfare and Indigenous Medicine), Govt. of Bihar, Patna, 3. Director, Indigenous Medicine, Department of Medical Education, Family Welfare and Indigenous Medicine, Govt. of Bihar, Patna, 4. Dr. Anirudh Mishra, Father’s name - not known, Superintendent, Govt. Ayurvedic College and Hospital, Patna and at present posted as Dy. Director, Ayurved, Indigenous Medicine Directorate, Department of Medical Education, Family Welfare and Indigenous Medicine, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. .... .... Respondents / Respondents. ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Banwari Sharma and Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocates. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Devendra Kumar Sinha, AAG 2. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 5 18-08-2011 Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 11th March 2011 passed by the learned single Judge in above CWJC No. 13897 of 2004, the writ petitioner has preferred the present Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. Patna High Court LPA No.1028 of 2011 (5) dt.18-08-2011 2 / 2 2 The appellant, a District Indigenous Medical Officer, Madhepura, filed the above writ petition to challenge his seniority vis-à-vis the respondent no. 4. According to the appellant, he ought to be senior to the respondent no. 4. However, in the impugned Gradation List the respondent no. 4 was shown above the appellant. It may be noted that except the seniority position the appellant did not claim any consequential benefit nor is it the grievance of the appellant that on account of the impugned Gradation List the appellant has suffered any civil consequence of loss of monetary gain or promotion. Pending the writ petition, the respondent no. 4 has passed away and the appellant also has retired from service. In view of the above development, the seniority amongst the appellant and the respondent no. 4 is of no consequence. The cause of action, therefore, does not survive. The learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition. Therefore, the present appeal. We have held that the cause of action does not survive. The appeal is dismissed in limine. Dilip. (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)