Patna High CourtCWJC/7484/2014disposed

Bhola Prasad Bhagat v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2017-03-28Mr. Justice Ashwani Kumar Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7484 of 2014 =========================================================== Bhola Prasad Bhagat, Son of late Saryug Bhagat, presently residing in Mohalla Bhikhanpur Gumti No.2, G.C. Banerjee Road, P.S.-Tilkamanjhi, District - Bhagalpur .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar, through the District Magistrate, Munger

2. The B.D.O., Tatarpur, Munger

3. The B.D.O., Habeli Khadagpur, Munger

4. The B.D.O., Dharhara, Munger

5. The B.D.O., Asarganj, Munger

6. The Treasury Officer, Bhagalpur .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Praveen Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sheo Shankar Pd., SC-10 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 28-03-2017 In the present writ application, the prayer of the petitioner is to direct the respondents to pay dearness allowance, arrear of house rent, difference of pay as per 6th Pay Commission recommendation and interest on the aforesaid amount.

2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 5. In paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that the difference amount of 6th Pay Revision from

Patna High Court CWJC No.7484 of 2014 dt.28-03-2017 2 / 2 01.01.2009 to 31.12.2009 amounting to Rs.89009/- vide bill no. 100/2014-15, the difference amount of M.A.C.P. amounting to Rs. 45,300/- vide bill no. 101/2014-15, the arrear of dearness allowance amounting to Rs.696/- vide bill no. 104/2014-15 and house rent amounting to Rs.326/- vide bill no. 117/2014-15 have already been paid to the petitioner.

3. It is stated that all these amount have been credited in the SBI Bank Account No. 32032251858 in the months of July and August 2014 itself.

4. The aforesaid contentions made on oath by the respondents have not been denied by the petitioner.

6. In that view of the matter, since the grievances of the petitioner raised in the present writ application have already been redressed, no mandamus is required to be issued.

6. Accordingly, the writ application is disposed of. (Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.) Sanjeet/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 30.03.2017 Transmission Date NA