Mosmat Reshma Devi v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5138 of 2012 =========================================================== Mosmat Reshma Devi W/O Late Ram Kirpal Yadav Resident Of Village/Mohalla Bakarganj, Abhanda, P.S., District-Darbhanga .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar Through Commissioner Cum Secretary, Department Of Food Consumer Protection, Government Of Bihar

2. The District Magistrate, Banka

3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Banka

4. The District Supply Officer, Banka

5. The Accountant General, Bihar .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : None For the Respondents : Mr. Gyan Prakash Ojha, G.P. 22 with Mr. Praveen Kumar, A.C. to GP. 22 For the Accountant General : Mr. Binod Kumar Labh =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 04-07-2016 Nobody appears on behalf of the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the State is present.

The writ petition has been filed seeking payment of pensionary dues to the petitioner, being wife of Late Ram Kirpal Yadav, who died in harness in the year 2010 working as a Marketing Officer under respondent no. 4.

From perusal of the counter affidavit filed it appears that final family pension as well as other retiral dues have been paid and with regard to the provident fund, the statement is that the amount with up-to-date interest has already been sent to the

Patna High Court CWJC No.5138 of 2012 dt.04-07-2016 competent authority for payment to the petitioner. A counter affidavit on behalf of respondent no. 6 has been affirmed on 05.05.2015 but due to non-availability of the learned counsel for the petitioner, copy of the same has not been served. However, with regard to the other averments made in the counter affidavit filed earlier on behalf of the respondents, copies of which had been served on the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no rejoinder. Having considered the aforesaid, this Court can only presume that the grievance of the petitioner has been redressed. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed off. However, if the petitioner finds that all the retiral benefits have still not been paid, she will be at liberty to file an application in the present writ petition for revival of the writ petition. (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J) Amin/- U