Jagadish Saw Vs The State of Bihar

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Pramendra Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ravi Kumar, A.C. to G.P.13 Mr. Akshay Lal Prasad, A.C. to G.P.13

¶13

======================================================

¶14

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER

¶15

2 07-05-2026 Heard the parties.

¶16

The present writ petition has been filed for the

¶17

following reliefs:

¶18

“1. That the present application is being filed for issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction, particularly in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondent authorities to make payment for 24 days of commuted leave and 31 days of earned leave, along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of sanction, which have already been duly sanctioned on full pay vide Office Order No.229/2019-20, contained in Memo No. 436 dated 24.06.2019, issued under the signature of the Deputy Collector (Establishment), Aurangabad.”

¶19

When the matter was taken up on 30.04.2026, the

¶20

Patna High Court CWJC No.6556 of 2026(2) dt.07-05-2026 2/3

¶21

learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State requested for a short adjournment in order to verify from the authorities concerned that why the amount has not been credited in the account of the petitioner till date and which has been sanctioned vide Memo No.436, dated 24.06.2019.

¶22

On the request made by the learned counsel for the State, the matter was passed over, without recording any order. Today, when the matter has been called out, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State-Respondents submits that an affidavit has already been sworn by respondents no.2, 3 and 5 on 04.05.2026 and the same has been uploaded on the website of this Court today. The hard copy of the same will be filing during course of the day in the office. Paragraph No.6 of the affidavit is being quoted hereinbelow:

¶23

“That the petitioner’s grievance, as raised in the present writ petition, already stands redressed, as pursuant to the sanctioned order contained in aforesaid Memo No. 436 dated 24.06.2019, the Circle Officer, Barun has processed, drawn, and settled the admissible dues of the petitioner, leaving no surviving cause of action for further adjudication.”

¶24

From perusal of paragraph no.6 of the said

¶25

affidavit, it appears that the grievance raised in the present writ petition, pursuant to the sanction order contained in Memo

¶26

Patna High Court CWJC No.6556 of 2026(2) dt.07-05-2026 3/3

¶27

No.436, dated 24.06.2019 stands redressed. The Circle Officer, Barun has processed, drawn and settled the admissible dues of the petitioner, leaving no surviving cause of action for further adjudication.

¶28

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, upon instruction from the petitioner, submits that the amount has already been credited in the account of the petitioner in March, 2026 itself, however due to the petitioner being old age, the same was not verified by him.

¶29

Accordingly, from the statement made in the counter affidavit and the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the writ petition has now become infructuous and is thus dismissed as infructuous.

¶30

(Ritesh Kumar, J.)

¶31

Sanjay/-

¶32

U

Jagadish Saw v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagadish Saw v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Md. Shahjad @ Shahjad Ansari Vs The State of Bihar

Md. Aftab Ansari @ Lallu Vs The State of Bihar

Gopal Sah, Vs The State of Bihar

Birendra Kumar Binay Vs The State of Bihar

Kali Paswan Vs The State of Bihar

Dipika Kumari Vs The State of Bihar