Dinesh Prasad Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1610 of 2013 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 17984 of 2012 ====================================================== Dinesh Prasad Singh son of Late Ram Lakhan Singh, R/O Lalband Toli, Near Alamganj, P.O. Guljarbag, P.S. Alamganj in the District of Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through Mr. S.K. Negi, son of known to the petitioner the Principal Secretary Department of Irrigation, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Mr. S.K. Negi, Principal Secretary, Department Of Irrigation, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3. The Mr. Indrajeet Sexcena, son of not known to the petitioner the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, Patna.

4. Mr. Prakash Das, son of not known to the petitioner, the Superintendent Engineer Punpun Flood Control Anchal, Anishabad, Patna.

5. Mr. Arun Kumar, son of not known To The Petitioner, The Executive Engineer, Flood Control Division, Mokama At Camp Bakhtiyarpur.

6. Mr. Abur Rahman, son of not known to the petitioner, the Assistant Engineer, Flood Control Sub Divisional, Mokama, Patna. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ORAL ORDER 15-03-2017 Writ petition was disposed of on 25.09.2012 with an innocuous order directing the State Government to examine the claim of the petitioner and settle it in accordance with the entitlement of the petitioner and if the amount is not paid within the stipulated period, the respondent shall be liable to pay interest on the amount at the rate of 12% compoundable yearly from his own pocket.

From the reply of the show cause notice filed, it is

Patna High Court MJC No.1610 of 2013 (4) dt.15-03-2017 2/2 seen that in accordance with the policy of the State Government and after considering the claim of the petitioner in the light of the policy, the claim has been settled and certain amount paid to the petitioner.

That being so, no further action is required in the matter. In case, the petitioner has any grievance with regard to settlement made, the petitioner may take recourse as may be available to him in accordance with the contract for adjudication of the remaining due.

With the aforesaid observation, application stands disposed of.

(Rajendra Menon, CJ) Sunil/- U