IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6872 of 2003 JAGDISH NARAYAN SINGH son of Late Lakshman Singh r/o village Pararia, P. O. Arthu, P. S. Dawath, District Rohtas, Rtd. Punchayat Sewak, Bikaramganj Block, At & P. O. Bikaramganj, District Rohtas…. Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The District Magistrate, Rohtas, Sasaram 3. The Addl. District Magistrate, Rohtas Punchayat Raj, Rohtas Collectorate, At & P. O. Sasaram, District- Rohtas. 4. The Block Development Officer, Bikaramganj, At & P.O. Bikaramganj, District Rohtas. 5. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna. 6. The Treasury Officer, Rohtas, At & P.O. Sasaram, District Rohtas. …. Respondents. ----------- 3. 06.11.2009. No one appears for the petitioner. However, counsel for the State as also counsel for the Accountant General are present. Prayer in this writ application reads as follows:- “That this is an application for issuance of appropriate writ directing the respondents to pay the retirement benefits on the basis of Second Time Bond Promotion which is due from 18.9.1988.” Respondents No. 1 to 4 have filed a counter affidavit. In paragraph 5 and 6 stands taken by the respondents are as follows:- “5. That it is humbly submitted that the District Magistrate, Rohtas, vide order dated 24.06.2003 has given Second Time Bond Promotion to the petitioner w.e.f. 2 01.01.1989 as per the decision of the Establishment Committee. 6. That as per calculation the difference of amount comes to Rs.29,022.00 and the same has been sanctioned by District Gram Panchayat Officer, Rohtas, and accordingly, Cheque No. 133424 dated 09.09.03 has been drawn and the petitioner has been informed to receive the cheque vide letter no. 612 dated 10.9.03 through registered letter. The moment petitioner comes cheque will be delivered to him. In the light of aforesaid facts as stated above, the writ petition is fit to be rejected.” In view of the aforementioned statement not controverted till date by the petitioner, this Court must hold that the grievance of the petitioner as raised in this writ application has been redressed. That being so, this writ application by efflux of time and subsequent events as narrated above in the counter affidavit has become infructuous and is dismissed accordingly. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)