Mohan Ray @ Ram Mohan Ray v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6076 of 2014 ====================================================== Mohan Ray @ Ram Mohan Ray, Son of Late Ram Ram Charitra Yadav, Resident of Village - Ratwara Bindwara, P.S. - Aurai, District - Muzaffarpur .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna

3. The Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna

4. The District Education Officer, Muzaffarpur

5. The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Muzaffarpur

6. The Block Education Extension Officer, Mushahary, Muzaffarpur

7. The Director, Provident Fund, Bihar, Patna

8. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Fakhruddin Ali Ahmad, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Md. Raisul Haque, SC-4 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 4 08-12-2016 In the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent No.5 it has been stated that an authority letter for Rs. 6,10,793/- for payment of GPF amount has been issued by him vide letter bearing No. 22 dated 13.01.2016. It has also been stated that this authority letter has been issued only for partial payment and for the remaining payment some queries pertaining to GPF recorded have been made which are to be furnished by the Drawing-cum-Disbursing Officer concerned which is still awaited. It is further stated that vide Memo No. 418 dated 01.02.2016 the Unutilized Earn Leave amount for Rs.

Patna High Court CWJC No.6076 of 2014 (4) dt.08-12-2016 2 / 2 3,18,650/- only to be paid to the petitioner has been sanctioned and vide Memo No. 5977 dated 17.12.2015 the Group Insurance amount for Rs. 1,31,000/- to be paid to the petitioner has been issued and sanctioned.

In view of the aforesaid assertions made in the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondent No.5, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw the present writ petition with liberty to file representation before the Respondent No.5 in respect of remaining claims by the petitioner.

Leave is granted.

In case any representation is filed by the petitioner in respect of unpaid retiral benefits before the Respondent No. 5, it is expected that the same shall be disposed of by him within three months from the date of such filing by passing a reasoned and speaking order.

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn.

(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.) Sanjeet/- U T