Patna High CourtCWJC/10524/2014disposed

Radhakant Choudhary v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2017-03-18Mr. Justice Ashwani Kumar Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10524 of 2014 =========================================================== Radhakant Choudhary, Son of Late Ganesh Chaudhary, Resident of VillageJharadi, Post- Jharadi, P.S- Gwalpara, District- Madhepura. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

3. The Director, Secondary Education, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna

4. The District Education Officer, Supaul.

5. The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Supaul.

6. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna.

.... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Brisketu Sharan Pandey, Advocate For the Respondent-State : Mr. Ajay Kumar Rastogi, AAG-X Mr. Parijat Saurav, AC to AAG-X =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 18-03-2017 The present writ application has been filed by the petitioner for a direction upon the respondents to release 100% pension in favour of the petitioner along with the entire arrear amount.

2. It is stated in the writ application that the petitioner, a teacher, retired in July, 2004 from Sri Kabir Kripa Nath

Patna High Court CWJC No.10524 of 2014 dt.18-03-2017 2 / 2 High School, Hariharpur, Supaul. As soon as he retired, he has been paid provisional pension with effect from August, 2004, but since his service book has been misplaced final pension could not be determined and paid so far.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 4 and 5, wherein it is stated that after preparation of duplicate service book of the petitioner final pension as well as gratuity has already been paid to the petitioner and the grievances of the petitioner have been redressed.

4. Considering the assertions made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 4 and 5, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the grievances of the petitioner seems to have been redressed, the writ application may be disposed of.

5. In view of the submission made above, the application is disposed of as infructuous.

(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.) Sanjeet/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 20.03.2017 Transmission Date NA