Md. Samruddin Ansari v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10821 of 2015 ======================================================
1. Md. Samruddin Ansari, Son of Late Md. Rafique, resident of VillageNajara, Post- Meghwan, Via- Basaith, P.S.- Benipatti, District- Madhubani. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Registrar, Co-operative Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Chairman, Rahika Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Madhubani.
3. The Managing Director, Rahika Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Madhubani.
4. The Administrative Officer, Rahika Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Madhubani.
.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Madan Mohan Jha For the Respondent/s : Mr. Purushottam Jha Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sinha, A.C. to GP 25 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE RAVI RANJAN ORAL ORDER 31-07-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and Rahika Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Madhubani. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he has been paid all other retiral dues except gratuity. The petitioner had retired on 31.01.2013 from the post of Branch Manager of Bisfi Branch of Rahika Central Cooperative Bank, Madhubani In the above view of the matter, this writ application is being disposed of with a direction to respondent no. 3, the Managing Director of the respondent Cooperative bank to consider the claim of the petitioner and take a decision within four
Patna High Court CWJC No.10821 of 2015 (2) dt.31-07-2015 weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. If the petitioner is found entitled for grant of gratuity then it should be paid to him along with statutory interest, if any, within a further period of four weeks, 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 became due till the date of its final payment.
It is further clarified that if the petitioner's claim does not find favour with respondent no. 3, then a reasoned order would be required to be passed and communicated to the petitioner.
(Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J) Amin/- U