Dr. Raj Kishore Sharma v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.6091 of 2013 Arising out of Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 33 of 2013 =========================================================== Dr. Raj Kishore Sharma, S/o Sri Briajan Sharma, Resident of Flat No. 403, Ramagriham, Bijay Nagar, P.O. + P.S. Rukunpura (West) Bailey Road, Patna-14. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Sri Deepak Kumar, S/o Not known, At present posted as Principal Secretary, Department of Health Services, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. Dr. Sohan Prasad Choudhary, S/o Not Known, at present posted as Director-inChief, Department of Health Services, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. Dr. M.M.P. Singh, S/o Not known, at present posted as Principal, Anugrah Narayan Magadh Medical College, Gaya.
5. The Treasury Officer, Patna
6. The District Provident Fund Officer, Gaya
7. Accountant General, Bihar .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Siya Ram Shahi, Advocate For Accountant General : Mr. L.P.K. Rajgrihar, Standing Counsel =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 18-03-2017 In the Writ Petition the order passed by the learned Writ Court was to pay the admissible amount as payable to the petitioner after his retirement. From the supplementary show-cause filed along with the affidavit of the Treasury Officer, Patna, it is seen that the payments to the petitioner were calculated, Pension Payment Order issued and a sum of Rs. 23,08,229/- towards arrears of pension and Rs. 3,50,000/- towards DCRG was released for payment and the pension bills and other documents filed along with the said affidavit from page 13 onwards indicate that the amounts have been paid to the
Patna High Court MJC No.6091 of 2013 dt.18-03-2017 2/2 pensioner concerned after due identification on 19.05.2016, as is evident from the pension bills and the receipt affixed therewith. There is no rebuttal or denial of the aforesaid payment. In view of the above, for the present, no further indulgence into the matter is called for. In case after the aforesaid compliance reported by the respondent petitioner has any grievance still subsisting, he shall have liberty to raise the same afresh in accordance with law. In the light of the materials that have come on record, this Court does not deem it appropriate to proceed further in the matter.
The Contempt Application is accordingly disposed of. (Rajendra Menon, CJ) P.K.P.
AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R.
CAV DATE N.A.
Uploading Date 20.03.2017 Transmission Date