- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) Shri Amarendra Sharan, the learned counsel for the respondent has filed a memorandum on behalf of the respondent seeking leave to withdraw the writ petition filed by the respondent in the High court, even though that writ petition has been allowed by the High court, staling in that memo as under: "1.The instant special leave petition is directed against the order of the Patna High court dated 28/1/1994 in CWJC No. 6878 of 1993. The respondent filed a writ petition seeking enforcement of certain benefits which were consistent with the notification by which he was appointed as a Presiding Officer of the Industrial tribunal. The notification dated 18/3/19933 states that he would be appointed as a Presiding Officer of the Industrial tribunal on conditions of re-employment. 2. In view of the State of Bihar not offering the conditions of re- employment as stated in the notification, the respondent filed the writ petition in which the order under appeal has come to be passed. 3. The respondent upon a reflection of the matter, consistent with the high traditions and dignity of the office which he held as Judge of the Patna High court, is of the considered view that he need not have approached the High court as a petitioner even to seek enforcement of what he believed to be his legitimate right. Upon a reconsideration of the matter, the respondent 355 craves leave of Your Lordships to withdraw his petition. Consistent with the traditions of the high office that the respondent has held, the respondent prays that Your Lordships may be pleased to give this opportunity. "
(3.) On the facts and in the circumstances of this case, we are satisfied that the stand taken by the respondent, who is a retired Judge of the Patna High court, is indeed to be commended and that it is consistent with the high traditions and dignity of the high office which he has held.;