DR. KASHI NATH (IN 7054) KRISHNA PRASAD (IN 7187) SHIVNANDAN LAL (IN 7681) GAUTAM KUMAR SINHA (IN 7682) SADANAND JHA (IN 7694) MALLICK IFTEKHAR AHSAN (IN 7695) SHAMBHU SHARAN (IN 7699) HARBALLABH SINGH (IN 7700) RAJDEO MISTRI (IN 7788) UDAY CHANDRA JHA (I Vs. STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. (IN 7054, 7681,7695 7699, 7788, 7793, 7796, 7806, 7808,[ 7822, 7832, 7836 , 7839, 7850, 7859, 7860, 7869, 7877, 7878, 7886, 7941 7948, 7950, 7964, 8035, 8041, 8042, 8043, 8047, 8049, 8054 , 8056, 8057, 8058, 8060, 8061, 8117, 8120, 8

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these writ petitions the grievance of the petitioners relates to retral dues/death-cum-retral dues, which have not been redressed even after filing of the writ petition and service of notice long back.

(2.) Under the High Court Rules the provision for service of two copies of the writ petition by way of notice was introduced to enable the Respondents to respond so that when the matter is taken up the pleadings are complete and no unnecessary adjournment is sought for.

(3.) This Court called upon learned counsel for the parties to file slip by 4.15 P.M. if the grievance has been redressed or any dispute is involved in any matter warranting consideration and decision on merit by this Court, but no slip has been filed so far. As such, in none of the cases, the Respondents have come up with redressal of the grievance. In almost every case counsel for the Respondents have simply been asking for adjournment to get instruction regarding redressal of the grievance. Earlier this Court had repeatedly cautioned them that they must be ready with up-to-date instructions, when the matter is taken up yet it seems that there has been hardly any response.