← Library
Patna High CourtCWJC/21922/2018dismissed

Lalan Prasad v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2022-09-12Mr. Justice Mohit Kumar Shah2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21922 of 2018 ====================================================== Lalan Prasad Son of Biju Prasad Resident of Mohalla-New Sidhauli, Narayan Tola, P.O.P.S.-Dalmiya Nagar, District-Rohtas ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar, through the Principal Secretary, Department of Water Resources, Sinchai Bhawan, Old Secretariat, Patna. 2.

The Commissioner-cum-Chairman, Sone Command Area Development Agency, Sone Bhawan, Patna-1 3.

The Secretary, Sone Command Area Development Agency, Sone Bhawans, Patna-1 4.

The Deputy Secretary, Sone Command Area Development Agency, Sone Bhawan, Patna-1.

Superintending Engineer, Sone Command Area Development Agency, Sone Bhawan, Patna-1.

5.

6.

The Executive Engineer, Sone Command Area Development Agency, Dehri, Rohtas, Bihar 7.

Deputy Agriculture Director, Sone Command Area Development Agency, Sone Bhawan, Patna-1 ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Arun Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Vinay Kriti Singh -GA2 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER 12-09-2022 The limited grievance of the petitioner in the present case is regarding non-payment of the remaining amount of gratuity and non-sanction of the benefits of A.C.P. The learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 7 has, by referring to the counter affidavit filed in the present case, submitted that the balance amount of gratuity has already stood paid to the petitioner and as far as grant of benefits of A.C.P is concerned, the same is not admissible inasmuch as the

Patna High Court CWJC No.21922 of 2018(2) dt.12-09-2022 2/2 respondent nos. 2 to 7 do not have any such policy, which is not controverted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In such view of the matter, the writ petition stands dismissed.

(Mohit Kumar Shah, J) S.Sb/SonalU