Shrimd.Mustafa Salik v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.4100 of 2014 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10817 of 2011 ======================================================
1. Shrimd.mustafa Salik Son of Md. Sayeed, Permanent Resident of Village+P.O.+P.S.-Basopatti, District-Madhubani (Bihar). .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Secretary, Department of Food AND Consumer Protection, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Deputy Secretary, Department of Food, Supply and Commerce, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The President, District Consumer Protection Forum, Madhubani.
5. The Collector, Madhubani.
6. The Managinr Director, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Sone Bhawan, Birchand Patel Path, Patna.
7. The Accountant General, Bihar Birchand Patel Pathf, Patna. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajendra Lal Das For the Respondent/s : Mr. K.K.Jha (Aag14) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 28-01-2015 Heard the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that actually the prayer was made in the writ petition for payment of gratuity, but instead of gratuity, this Court has directed for payment of G.P.F., which was already paid to the petitioner. Secondly, he has claimed that he had filed I.A. No. 7439 of 2014 on the day of disposal of writ petition as the counsel could not mark the list, he did not appear in the case and proper assistance could not be given to the Court.
Patna High Court MJC No.4100 of 2014 (2) dt.28-01-2015 2/2 It does not appear from the order that the foresaid Interlocutory application was present at the time of passing of the order. Therefore, the question of considering the relief sought for on I.A. application does not arise. However, in place of G.P.F., it should be read as Gratuity. The order dated 26.09.2014 is modified to the aforesaid extent. The petitioner, if so advised, may pursue his remedy.
Accordingly, this M.J.C. application is disposed of. (Shivaji Pandey, J) Sudha/- U T