IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2875 of 2008 Anirudh Prasad , Son of Kauleshwari Prasad, resident of Ward no.14, Daltenganj Road Bypass, Aurangabad, P.S. Aurangabad, District- Aurangabad ------------------------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar,Patna 2. The Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road,Patna 3. The Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road,Patna 4. The Financial Controller, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road,Patna 5. The General Manager-cum- Chief Engineer, Transmission Zone,Patna 6. The General Manager-cum- Chief Engineer, Area Electricity Board, Gaya 7. The Electrical Superintending Engineer, Transmission Circle, Dehari-on-Sone 8. The Electrical Executive Engineer, Transmission Division, Dehari- on-Sone 9. The Electrical Executive Engineer, Electrical Supply Division, Aurangabad 10. The Electrical Superintending Engineer, Electrical Supply Circle, Gaya 11. The Assistant Electrical Engineer, Transmission Sub Division, Banzari, Dehari –on-Sone -------------------------- Respondents. ---------------------------------- 02 16-08-2011 Sri Vijay Kumar Verma , learned counsel for the Respondents/Bihar State Electricity Board submits that during the pendency of the present writ petition, all the retiral dues of the petitioner have already been paid. Sri Kumod Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to dispute the statement made by learned counsel for the Respondent/Bihar State Electricity Board. In view of the stand taken by the parties, there is no need to keep the matter further pending. 2 The writ petition stands disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to approach Respondent no.6/ the General Manager- cum- Chief Engineer, Area Electricity Board, Gaya in case any of the grievances, as raised in the present writ petition, still exists by filing a representation within a period of six weeks from today. If such representation is filed by the petitioner before the Respondent no.6, he is required to examine the same and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of filing of such representation. Respondent no.6 is further directed to pass order for clearing the dues, as claimed in the writ petition, if it is still pending. Even in case of refusal, the Respondent no.6 is required to pass speaking order and communicate the same to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of filing of such representation. The liberty for filing representation has been granted due to the reason that no counter affidavit has been filed and only on oral submission of learned counsel for the Respondents, the writ petition has been disposed of. The writ petition stands disposed of. NKS/- ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)