Dayanand Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10159 of 2015 ====================================================== Dayanand Singh, Son of Late Indra Singh, Resident of Village - Bauk, P.S. Punpun, District Patna .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The Principle Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna

3. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna

4. The Superintending Engineer (Mechanical) Irrigation Department, Dehri-on-Son

5. The Executive Engineer (Mechanical) Irrigation Department, Dehrion-Son .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Satish Chandra, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Madanjeet Kumar, G.P.-XX ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. NATH ORAL ORDER 20-08-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

The present application has been filed by the petitioner for direction to the respondents to make payment of post retiral benefits with statutory and penal interest. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there has been a direction as contained in Annexure-6 of the writ application whereby the respondent-Executive Engineer was directed to take appropriate decision in accordance with law on the claim of the petitioner. It has further been submitted that no decision has so far been taken by the respondents. The learned counsel appearing for the State-

Patna High Court CWJC No.10159 of 2015 (3) dt.20-08-2016 2/2 respondents, on whose behalf a counter affidavit has also been filed today, has submitted that the amount of group insurance and G.P.F. has already been paid to the petitioner as stated in paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit. It has also been pointed out that the petitioner is not entitled to the retiral benefits. It has, however, been accepted that no such reasoned order denying the retiral benefits has been passed so far. The learned counsel for the State-respondent has submitted that such order shall be passed within four weeks positively.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed the aforesaid position and has submitted that this application be disposed of with a direction to the respondents to pass a reasoned order if they seek to deny the retiral benefits to the petitioner.

After considering the aforesaid submissions and facts and circumstances, this writ application is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to pass a reasoned order in accordance with law with regard to the claim of the petitioner for pension and gratuity within a period of four weeks from today. Kundan (V. Nath, J.) U