Patna High CourtCWJC/19591/2010disposed

Bhola Sharan Gupta v. Rajendra Agricultural Universi

2015-05-11Mr. Justice Mihir Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19591 of 2010 ====================================================== Bhola Sharan Gupta S/O Late Bhagwat Sah R/O Vill Dudhpura, P.S. Samastipur, Distt-Samastipur .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. Rajendra Agricultural University Bihar, Pusa, Samastipur, through Its Registrar, having office at Pusa, Samastipur

2. The Vice Chancellor, Rajendra Agricultural University Bihar , Pusa, Samastipur

3. The Comptroller , Rajendra Agricultural University Bihar, Pusa, Samastipur

4. The Director, Administration, Rajendra Agricultural University Bihar, Pusa, Samastipur

5. The Associate Dean-Cum-Principal, Tirhut College Of Agriculture Dholi, Muzaffarpur .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Gajanan Arun, Advocate.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Chandra Mohan Singh, Advocate.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 12-05-2015 Having regard to the fact that the petitioner has certain grievance still in relation to recovery of the amount of medical reimbursement, which definitely is not a retirement benefit, Mr. Gajanan Arun, learned counsel for the petitioner, seeks permission to withdraw this writ application in order to enable the petitioner to move before appropriate authority/court.

2. Mr. Arun has also explained that while withdrawing so, the petitioner does not give up his claim for remaining 40% of

Patna High Court CWJC No.19591 of 2010 (4) dt.12-05-2015 2/2 the retirement benefit, which has not been paid to the petitioner only on account of non-release of fund by the State Government to the Rajendra Agriculture University.

3. That being so, this writ application is, accordingly, permitted to be withdrawn, but nothing said in this order shall come in the way of the petitioner in claiming his 40% amount of the remaining retirement benefit, as admitted by the respondents in the counter affidavit, which must be paid to the petitioner along with others, which has not been paid only on account of nonrelease of fund by the State Government.

4. As the State Government is not a party to the writ application, this court would refrain from issuing any direction for release of the fund by the State Government.

(Mihir Kumar Jha, J) Sujit/- U