- (1.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that earlier original petitioner had preferred W.P. (S) No. 3683 of 2004 which was finally disposed of by this Court vide order dated 12th March, 2010 and the direction given by this Court in paragraph 8 is yet to be complied with by the respondents.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation submitted that the services of the original petitioner, namely, Krishna Nandan Singh was terminated on 10 th March, 2003, original petitioner expired on 10th June, 2005 and the date of superannuation of the original petitioner was 31st March, 2010. Learned counsel for the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation further submitted that there is an error in paragraph 8 of the order passed by this Court in the earlier writ petition because this Hon'ble Court has directed that the original petitioner was entitled to salary from the date of termination till the date of superannuation, but, in fact the original petitioner has expired in between and, therefore, Civil Review No. 30 of 2012 has been preferred and, therefore, the same may be taken up for its final hearing because they have already brought cheque of Rs. 6,38,140/ for the payment of all the dues from the date of termination of the original petitioner till the date on which he expired.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the applicant has fairly accepted that there cannot be an order of payment of salary from the date of termination till the date of superannuation because the original petitioner has expired in between. Learned counsel for the applicant has no objection if the Civil Review No. 30 of 2012 is taken up for its final hearing today because his client who is applicant in the contempt case, is a widow of the original petitioner.;