Patna High CourtMJC/1470/2015disposed

Nitya Nand Pandey v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2016-03-09Mr. Justice Shivaji Pandey2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1470 of 2015 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 20157 of 2013 ====================================================== Nitya Nand Pandey Son of Late Shyam Kishore Pandey Resident of Village - Kaithil, P.O.- Mahakar, P.S.- Chandi, District -Nalanda .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Sushil Sinha, The Chairman, Bihar State Ware Housing Corporation, B2 First Floor, Maurya Lok Premises, Patna

3. Sushil Kumar, The Managing Director, Bihar Stte Ware Housing Corporation, B-2, First Floor, Maurya Lok Premises, Patna

4. Anant Kumar Sahu, The Deputy Managing Director (Finance) cum Accounts Officer, Bihar Stae WAre Housing Corporation, B-2, First Floor, Maurya Lok Premises, Patna

5. Ashok Kumar Sinha, Branch Manager, L.I.C. Frazer Road, Patna .... .... Respondents/Contemnors ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shree Nivas Madhuvan, Adv. Mr. Satyendra Rai, Adv.

For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, Adv.

Mr. Sudhanshu Trivedi, Adv.

Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Rai, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 09-03-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has accepted the payment of Rs. 1,60,141/- under the head of difference of salary. As per LIC, altogether Rs.96,676/- has been paid to the petitioner as a commuted value of pension and the same has been credited to the account of the petitioner and so much so that the petitioner is also getting regular pension of Rs. 4,703/- quarterly.

Patna High Court MJC No.1470 of 2015 (2) dt.09-03-2016 In that view of the matter, there is no need to proceed with the matter.

This Court would direct the Corporation to supply the breakup of the amount that has been paid to the petitioner. If the petitioner will not be satisfied, then he would be at liberty to file a fresh representation drawing attention of the authority to the discrepancy, if any in the payment made to him. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of.

(Shivaji Pandey, J) Rishi/- U