Arun Kumar Sinha v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10830 of 2015 ======================================================
1. Arun Kumar Sinha, Son of Late Kailash Bihari Sinha, Resident of Laskariganj, District- Sasaram, Rohtas.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Food and Civil Supply Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Managing Director, Bihar State Food and Civil Suppli Corporation Ltd., Sone Bhawan, Birchand Patel Path, Patna.
3. The District Manager, Bihar State Food and Civil Supply Corporation Ltd., Darbhanga.
4. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna.
.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ibrahim Kabir For the Respondent/s : Mr. A.C. to G.P. 19 For the B.S.F.C. : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE RAVI RANJAN ORAL ORDER 31-07-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and the Bihar State Food and Civil Supply Corporation Ltd. In view of the limited prayer made at the time of hearing, this writ application is being disposed of with a direction to respondent no. 2, the Managing Director of the Bihar State Food and Civil Supply Corporation Limited to consider the grievance of the petitioner for non-payment of retiral dues and take steps for payment of the admissible dues within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order failing which the same will carry simple interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum to be calculated from the date the same
Patna High Court CWJC No.10830 of 2015 (2) dt.31-07-2015 became due till the date of its final payment in addition to the statutory interest, if any, because the petitioner's claim is that though he has retired on 31.07.2012 but no retiral benefit has been given to him and there is no departmental proceeding pending against him.
It is further clarified that if the petitioner's claim does not find favour with respondent no. 2 then a reasoned order would be required to be passed and communicated to him. (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J) Amin/- U