Patna High CourtL.P.A/2318/2016dismissed

Chandra Deo Sharma v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2018-01-10Justice Smt. Nilu Agrawal,Mr. Justice Ajay Kumar Tripathi2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.2318 of 2016 IN Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 16405 of 2012 =========================================================== Chandra Deo Sharma, S/o Late Shibjee Sharma, Resident of village - Berna, P.S. Barh in the District of Patna, retired Headmaster, Middle School, Sarhan, Police Station Pandarak in the district of Patna .... .... Appellant/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through its Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna

2. The Chief Secretary Govt. of Bihar, Patna

3. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Department ( Primary Education )

4. The Director Primary Education, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar New Secretariat, Patna

5. The Divisional Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna

6. The District Collector/District Magistrate, Patna

7. The District Education Officer, Patna

8. The District Programmer officer ( Establishment ), Patna

9. The then district Superintendent of Education, Patna

10. The District Provident Fund office, Patna

11. The District Treasury Officer, Patna

12. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr.

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI and HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI) Date: 10-01-2018 Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

Perused the order dated 18.11.2016. There was no

Patna High Court LPA No.2318 of 2016 dt.10-01-2018 2/2 intentional or deliberate delay on the part of the respondent authorities in settlement of the G.P.F. claim or post retrial dues of the appellant. There was a departmental proceeding. Merely because it was set aside on one technicality or the other subsequently, it does not mean that there were no valid reasons for not settling the post retrial dues. The expectation of the appellant to be paid interest for the delay caused due to departmental proceeding is misplaced. Appeal has no merit. It is dismissed.

(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) (Nilu Agrawal, J) Rajesh/Devendra AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date12.01.2018 Transmission Date NA