Pramath Patnaik, J. - (1.) Before adverting to proceeding in this case, it would be necessary to mention that during pendency of the writ application, the petitioner submitted a representation through Speed Post to this Court praying therein for grant of his payment and for stoppage of payment of the Officers of the Department concerned for their inaction. The said representation has been though tagged with the record, but, it is advised to learned counsel for the petitioner to take care such things as when the matter is under consideration before Judicial side such correspondences are deprecated. But, considering the age of the petitioner, who is approaching octagenerarian and undertaking given by learned counsel for the petitioner, no order is passed or cost is imposed.
(2.) In the instant writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for direction upon the respondents to accommodate the petitioner in service and after his reinstatement, pay arrears of salary and also to give all pensionary benefits.
(3.) The facts, as delineated in the writ application, in brief is that initially the petitioner was appointed on the post of 'Superior Field Officer' in the department of Anti-malaria Unit at Pakur on 11.02.1961 and continued till 1966. But, vide letter dated 23.05.1966, the petitioner was retrenched from services on the ground that his services is no longer required. It has further been averred that on being represented the respondents-authorities, in particular Chief Malaria Officer, Bihar called the petitioner for interview and accordingly the petitioner was interviewed on 3.11.1978 but no action was taken. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner represented before His Excellency the President of India vide letter dated 12.03.1992, in response thereto, the President Secretariat made correspondence to the then Chief Secretary, State of Bihar to do the needful, but even then also no fruitful result came out, and thereafter also the petitioner from time to time represented before the respondents-authorities but it did not evoke any response, hence, the petitioner left with no alternative, efficacious remedy, approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances.;