Patna High Court
Ali Ahmad vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 4 December, 2023
Author: Harish Kumar
Bench: Harish Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1955 of 2012
======================================================
ALI AHMAD, Son of Late Matloob Rza, Resident of B.4 Alice Apartment,
New Hotel Solma, Mohalla- Miramar, Panaji, P.S. Panaji, North-Goa
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna
2. The Director of Agriculture, Government of Bihar, Patna
3. The Joint Director of Agriculture, Government of Bihar, Patna
4. The Director of Agriculture and Ex-Office, Joint Secretary, Government of
Bihar, Patna
5. The Under Secretary Development, Government of Bihar, Patna
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Md. Khurshid Alam
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Jaishankar Barnwal, SC-1
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 04-12-2023
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The original petitioner, being aggrieved by the
order, as contained in Memo No. 3246 dated 01.08.2006 by
which his claim for pro rata pension has been rejected, has
preferred the present writ petition way back in the year 2012
itself. However, during the pendency of this writ petition on
account of non-compliance of peremptory order dated
30.01.2012
, the writ petition stood dismissed, which was
subsequently restored to its record vide order dated 17.10.2022,
passed in M.J.C. No. 4792 of 2018.
3. It is informed to this Court that during the
Patna High Court CWJC No.1955 of 2012 dt.04-12-2023
pendency of the present writ petition, the original petitioner was
died and thus time was allowed to file a substitution petition for
substituting the legal heirs of the (deceased) sole petitioner.
4. Despite sufficient opportunity provided to the
learned counsel for the petitioner to ensure filing of the
substitution petition, till date the same could not be done.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner informed to
this Court that as the office clerk of the Advocate on Record has
also died and thus he is not in a position to inform the legal heirs
of the sole petitioner. Thus, he prays for further four weeks' time
to enquire about the address of the legal heirs and inform him/
them properly regarding pendency of the present writ petition.
6. Considering the submissions made on behalf of
the parties and taking note of the matter in dispute, which relates
to pro rata pension and also the fact that the impugned order was
passed way back in the year 2006, which was assailed before
this Court after six years, in 2012, and now the legal heirs are
not coming forward to pursue the remedy, this Court left with no
option, but to dispose of the writ petition with a liberty to the
legal heirs of the sole petitioner that if they intent to pursue the
remedy, they may file a fresh writ petition or the appropriate
application before the concerned authorities.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1955 of 2012 dt.04-12-2023
7. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands
disposed of.
(Harish Kumar, J)
uday/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 05.12.2023
Transmission Date NA
