Maalik Yadav v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

Patna High Court MJC No.3185 of 2014 (9) dt.08-07-2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3185 of 2014 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12451 of 2013 ======================================================

1. Maalik Yadav Son of Late Dhanush Lal Yadav Resident of Village, P.O. AND P.S.-Phulparas, District-Madhubani.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through Sri Amarjit Singh, the Commissioner-cumSecretary, Secondary, Primary and Adult Education, Human Resources Department, Bihar, Visheshwaraia Bhawan, Patna. name of father not known to the petitioner

2. Sri A. Singh, the Director, Human Resources Department, Bihar, Patna. name of father not known to the petitioner

3. Sri Anupam Kumar, the Director, Provident Fund Directorate, Pant Bhawan, Patna. name of father not known to the petitioner

4. Sri Vinod Kumar Vimal, the District Program Officer, Establishment Madhubani. name of father not known to the petitioner

5. Sri Ram Sukhit Roy, the District Provident Fund Officer, Madhubani. name of father not known to the petitioner

6. Sri Pankaj Kumar, the District Officer (Pension Cell), Madhubani. name of father not known to the petitioner .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. Subhash Prasad Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 08-07-2015 Supplementary show cause is filed on behalf of opposite party no. 4.

The opposite party no. 4 is present in person. Heard the parties.

Learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties states that all the admitted dues of the petitioner have already been paid to him.

Patna High Court MJC No.3185 of 2014 (9) dt.08-07-2015 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that still the amount of Suspense account, Difference of salary and some amount of G.P.F. have not been paid to the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances as well as submissions of the parties, this petition stands disposed of giving liberty to petitioner to file a fresh representation before the opposite party no. 4 raising his grievances which have been left to be redressed within three weeks and if any representation is filed before the opposite party no. 4 within the above stated period of three weeks, the same shall be disposed of by the opposite party no. 4 within a month passing reasoned order. However, it is made clear that even after disposal of the representation, the petitioner still carries some grievances, he may take steps in accordance with law before appropriate forum.

(Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J) SHAHZAD/- U