Mahesh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.328 of 2016 =========================================================== Mahesh (Retd. Sweeper, Ward No. 51 B.C., Patna), Son of Late Balchand Ram, resident of Ambedkar Colony, Sandalpur, P.S. Sultanganj, District - Patna .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Urban Development, Government of Bihar, Patna

2. The Patna Municipal Corporation through its Municipal Commissioner

3. The Chief Accountant Controller Officer, Patna Municipal Corporation, Patna

4. The Executive Officer, Patna Municipal Corporation, Bankipur Circle, District - Patna .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ramendra Prasad, Advocate For the P.M.C. : Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ajay Bihari Sinha, S.C.-19 For the State : Mrs. Priyanka Deodas, A.C. to S.C.-19 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE RAVI RANJAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 13-05-2016 Heard parties.

The grievance of the petitioner is that though he has retired from the post of Sweeper on 30.06.2012, still nothing has been paid to him with respect to his post retiral benefits. Learned counsel for the Patna Municipal Corporation has submitted that a decision has been taken to make payment of the retiral dues to all the retired employees in seriatim but due to the crunch of fund, the same has not been paid. However, it is submitted that recently a decision has been taken that the persons, who have retired till 31st July, 2013 would be paid admissible dues.

Patna High Court CWJC No.328 of 2016 dt.13-05-2016 2/2 Accordingly, I direct the Municipal Commissioner, Patna Municipal Corporation to get the admissible retiral dues of the petitioner calculated immediately and make such payment within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. However, a copy of calculation done would be provided to the petitioner. If the petitioner is not satisfied, he would have liberty to raise his grievance before the authority concerned by filing a representation.

This disposes of writ petition.

(Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J) Vats/- U