Pashupati Prasad v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7400 of 2020 ====================================================== Pashupati Prasad, Son of Late Gharbharan Singh, Resident of Village- Koni, P.S.- Kachhawa, Distt.- Rohtas.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Building Construction Department, Vishwasyaraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 2.

The Dy. Secretary, Building Construction, Department, Patna. 3.

The Executive Engineer, Building Construction, Deptt., Patliputra Building Division, Patna.

4.

The Senior Accounts Officer, BCD, Patliputra Building Division, Patna. 5.

The Director, Provident Fund, Pant Bhawan, Patna. 6.

The Accountant General, Bihar Patna.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

None For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Rajeev Shekhar, AC to GA-13 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 05-12-2023 None appears on behalf of the petitioner.

2. Mr. Rajeev Shekhar, learned counsel for the State is present.

3. It is submitted that in compliance of the order dated 06.10.2023, the claim of the petitioner was duly considered by the Secretary, Building Construction Department in the light of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Amresh Kumar Singh & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., reported in (2023) SCC OnLine SC 496. However, having found that apart from confirmation of service, the petitioner has also not

Patna High Court CWJC No.7400 of 2020(14) dt.05-12-2023 2/2 passed Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination and thus his claim has been rejected vide order, as contained in Memo No. 9056, dated 06.11.2023. He further submits that so far the grievance with regard to outstanding dues of the petitioner is concerned, the petitioner has already been paid to the tune of Rs.2,92,664/-. He thus submits that in view thereof now the grievance of the petitioner has been redressed.

4. Considering the submissions made on behalf of the respondents and the averments made in the supplementary counter affidavit, the present writ petition stands disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order as contained in Memo No. 9056, dated 06.11.202, passed by the Secretary, Building Construction Department, 3, if so desires. (Harish Kumar, J) uday/- U