Patna High CourtCWJC/14574/2014disposed

Shatrughan Kumar Choudhary v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2017-08-04Mr. Justice Ashwani Kumar Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14574 of 2014 ======================================================

1. Shatrughan Kumar Choudhary S/o Late Ramjee Choudhary Resident of 204, Indu Enclave Nandanpul, P.S. Rajeev Nagar, Patna-14. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Old Secretariat, Patna.

2. The Principal Secretary, General Administration, New Secretariate, Patna.

3. The Principal Secretary, Co-operative Department, New Secretariate, Patna.

4. The Provident Fund Commissioner (Pension), Patna.

5. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna.

.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Adv. For the State : Mr. Puneet Siddhartha, A.C. to AAG-13 For the Accountant General : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 04-08-2017 The dispute in the present writ petition is only in respect of 10% pension and gratuity and the amount equivalent to the earned leave, which were kept pending while sanctioning remaining 90% of the retirement benefits.

A supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent no.2 in which it has been stated that due to certain allegation 10% pension and gratuity and amount equivalent to earned leave had been kept pending. However, since the allegation has been disposed of and no departmental proceeding is pending against the petitioner, the remaining outstanding dues of 10% pension, gratuity and amount equivalent

Patna High Court CWJC No.14574 of 2014 (4) dt.04-08-2017 2/2 to earned leave has been sanctioned in favour of the petitioner. The sanction orders dated 02.03.2017 have also been annexed to the supplementary counter affidavit.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has no instruction as to whether the sanctioned amount has been paid to the petitioner or not.

Be that as it may, keeping in mind the assertions made in the counter affidavit, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that if the aforesaid sanctioned amount has not been paid to the petitioner, the respondents shall ensure payment of the same without any delay.

(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J) Pradeep/- U