Shanti Devi v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.23110 of 2011 =========================================================== Shanti Devi W/O Sri Rajeev Lochan , resident of village Makranta, P.S. Karay Parsurai, Distt. Nalanda .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar

2. The Director ( Secondary Education) Bihar ,Budh Marg, Patna

3. The Regional Deputy Director Of Education, Patna Division, Patna

4. The District Education Officer, Nalanda At Biharsharif

5. Head Master, Bapu High School Chandi, Nalanda .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Pandey For the Respondent/s : AC to A.A.G. No. 6 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 23-05-2017

1. Heard Sri Dhananjay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AC to A.A.G. No. 6.

2. The present writ petition was filed in the month of December, 2011 with a prayer to direct the respondents to refund Rs. 26319 /-, which was recovered as house rent, from the petitioner after her superannuation. It has been stated in the petition that petitioner retired in the month of February, 2010. After retirement her retiral dues was not given on the ground of non- issuance of no dues certificate and it was claimed that house rent to the tune of Rs. 26319/- was due against the petitioner. In the writ petition a specific stand has been taken that while she was posted in Dhanshwari Kanya

Patna High Court CWJC No.23110 of 2011 dt.23-05-2017 2/3 Uchch Vidyalaya , Chandi in between 2003 and 2006 she never stayed in Government quarter and as such, no house rent was deducted from her salary. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since against one of her transfer order, the petitioner had approached this court and filed a writ petition and a Bench of this court had quashed the order of transfer , maliciously after retirement petitioner was constrained to deposit Rs. 26319/- as house rent. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the said amount was deposited under pressure , only with a view to get retiral dues, the petitioner thereafter filed representation before the Incharge Principal of the School from where she retired i.e. Bapu Uchch Vidyalaya, Chandi for refund of the said amount but on her representation no decision has been taken till date.

3. After some argument, learned counsel for the petitioner in presence of learned AC to A.A.G. No. 6 makes a prayer for disposal of the present writ petition granting liberty to her to file fresh representation regarding claim made in the present petition.

4. In view of the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the fact that despite the writ petition was filed in the year 2011, no counter affidavit has been filed till date, the court proposes to dispose of the writ petition granting liberty to the petitioner to represent before the authority concerned.

Patna High Court CWJC No.23110 of 2011 dt.23-05-2017 3/3

5. It goes without saying that if within a period of eight weeks from today the petitioner files fresh representation before the authority concerned, the authority concerned without being prejudiced with this order may examine the same and pass appropriate order in accordance with law preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing of such representation.

6. The writ petition stands disposed of.

(Rakesh Kumar, J) Praful/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 25 -05-2017 Transmission Date NA