Patna High CourtCWJC/20685/2014disposed

Parmeshwar Thakur v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2016-07-22Mr. Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20685 of 2014 ====================================================== Parmeshwar Thakur, Son of Late Saukhi Lal Thakur, Resident of Village-Bhauara, Post Office- Bhauara, Ward No. 26, Police Station-Madhubani, District- Madhubani .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar , through its Health Department, Bihar, Patna

2. The Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Madhubani

3. The Incharge Medical Officer, Primary, Health Centre, Babubarhi, P. S. Raj Nagar, District-Madhubani .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prabhas Ranjan For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, GP-19 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 22-07-2016 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner's mother retired as Trained Dai, while serving at Primary Health Center, Babubarhi in the District of Madhubani with effect from 29.02.1997.

Petitioner's mother died on 27.06.1998.

This application has been filed seeking direction to the respondents for payment of post retiral dues including gratuity, leave encashment, arrears of pension from March, 1997 to June, 1998 and provident fund along with interest. A counter affidavit has been filed in which it has been stated that the authority slip for pension for the period she was entitled to has already been issued and the amount has also been paid to her. It has also been stated that cash

equivalent to earned leave and general provident fund amount has also been paid to the petitioner. It also appears that the group insurance amount had already been paid to the petitioner in the year 1998-1999 itself.

There is no specific statement as to whether the petitioner was entitled for arrears of pension for the period March, 1997 to June, 1998 and whether the said amount has been paid to her or not.

From the counter affidavit, it appears that the grievance of the petitioner has substantially been redressed. It is made clear that if any amount has still remained unpaid to the petitioner, he will be at liberty to file an application before the competent authority. This disposes of the application.

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) ArunKumar/- U