Prem Nath Mahto v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1885 of 2016 =========================================================== Prem Nath Mahto Son of Late Judagi Mahto, Resident of village- Yamunapur, P.O. Amhara, P.S.- Bihta, District- Patna .... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Transport Department, Bihar
2. The Administrator, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Patna, Bihar
3. Divisional Manager, Ranchi, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Ranchi, Main Road Ranchi, Distt. Ranchi near Overbridge .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Pranav Kumar For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, AC to SC 10 For BSRTC : M/s P.K.Veram and Dr. Mankeshwar Singh, Advocates =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE RAVI RANJAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 20-05-2016 Heard parties.
Petitioner claims to have retired as driver from Bihar State Road Transport Corporation.
It is contended that no departmental proceeding has ever been initiated against him but admissible retiral benefit has not been paid.
Though a copy of this writ application was served on the respondents on 8.12.2015 but no counter affidavit has been filed till date.
Accordingly, this writ application is being disposed of with a direction to the respondent no. 2, The Administrator, Bihar
Patna High Court CWJC No.1885 of 2016 dt.20-05-2016 2/2 State Road Transport Corporation to take steps for payment of admissible post retiral dues to the petitioner along with statutory interest, if any, within a period of three months from the date of receipt / production of a copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has noticed the letter of the Principle Secretary concerned contained in memo no. 34 dated 10.2.2016 making available a fund of 381.2 crores for payment of retrial dues for employees. If the claim of the petitioner is not found tenable then a reasoned order would be required to be passed by the concerned respondent which should be communicated to the petitioner immediately.
(Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J) Spd/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 18.06.2016 Transmission Date NA