Pramod Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13304 of 2013 ===========================================================

1. Pramod Kumar Singh S/O Shri Ramjee Singh Resident Of Village Basadhi, P.O. Gurukul Mehia, P.S. Chapra Mufassil, District Saran, At Present Workiing As A Home-Guard At Sadar Chapra Anchal Chapra Sadar, District Saran .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar

2. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna

3. The Inspector General of Police, Patna Zone, Patna

4. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Patna Division, Patna

5. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna

6. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Patna

7. The District Commandant, Home Guard, Patna

8. The Staff Officer, Office of The Inspector General Of Police, Patna Zone, Patna .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Umesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Alok Kumar Rahi, AC to GP 21 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 22-11-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

In the present case, petitioner is seeking relief for grant of salary for the period Ist October, 2012 to 27th December, 2012. Petitioner is member of the Bihar Home Guard and used to be posted for discharging the duty for law and order. He vide command letter no. 1095 dated 25.7.2012 was directed to discharge the duty of law and order in place of Gariban Ram and later on he was substituted by Debajit Prasad vide letter dated 12.10.2012.

Patna High Court CWJC No.13304 of 2013 dt.22-11-2016 From the letter dated 9.9.2013 it appears that petitioner has been paid his remuneration from 25.7.2012 to September, 2012 but he has not been paid his remuneration from the month of October to 27.12.2012 as office has not received the letter. Admittedly from the counter affidavit it appears that petitioner was relieved from his duty vide command 10895 dated 12.10.2012 which itself indicates that petitioner discharged his duty up-to 12.10.2012.

In such view of the matter, this Court is of the view that petitioner is entitled for 12 days remuneration for the duty discharged by him and as such respondents are directed to release the remuneration for the aforesaid period after proper verification.

With the aforesaid observation this writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent.

Vinay/- (Shivaji Pandey, J) AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 24.11.2016 Transmission Date NA