Braj Kishor v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1244 of 2022 ====================================================== Braj Kishor S/o Late Ram Bachan Ram Resident of Mohalla New Area near Balram Singh Pipe Factory Dehri-on-Sone, District- Rohtas. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through its Secretary, Home Department, Government of Bihar.

2.

The Inspecetor General of Police, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3.

The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Patna, Bihar. ... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Ms. Sunita Kumari, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Manish Kumar, G.P.-4 Mr. Manoj Kumar, AC to GP-4 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 19-01-2024 Heard Mrs. Sunita Kumari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned counsel representing the State.

2. The petitioner claiming himself to be son of late Ram Bacchan Ram, who superannuated on 31.01.1993 and subsequently died on 19.04.2003, has filed the writ petition seeking a direction upon the respondents to ensure payment of all admissible pension, gratuity, leave encashment G.P.F. and other retiral dues.

3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the father of the petitioner was posted at different places during his service carrier and since the time of his retirement, he remained under prolonged, illness and confined to bed and lastly died on

Patna High Court CWJC No.1244 of 2022(2) dt.19-01-2024 2/2 19.04.2003, but no claim for retiral benefit has been accorded nor any other admissible dues has been paid to him. In course of time even the wife of the erstwhile employees has also died without getting any terminal benefit of her late husband.

4. At this stage, learned counsel for the State submits that admittedly the father of the petitioner had superannuated on 31.01.1993 from the Giridih Police Force and thereafter, he never approached before any authorities concerned and after 30 years of his retirement the present writ petition is being filed. Thus, the same is fit to be dismissed on account of delay and laches.

5. Be that as it may, considering the fact that the petitioner has already made representation before the respondent No. 2, let the respondent No. 2 consider the same and dispose of by the reasoned and speaking order within a period of three months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order.

6. This writ application stands disposed of.

(Harish Kumar, J) shweta/- U