Suresh Prasad Verma v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18660 of 2014 ===========================================================

1. Suresh Prasad Verma Son of Late Baijnath Prasad Verma, Resident of Mohalla - Shekhpura, Shastri Nagar, P.S. - Shastri Nagar, District - Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj, New Secretariate, Patna.

2. Director, Panchayati Raj, New Secretariat, Patna.

3. District Magistrate, Madhepura.

4. District Panchayat Officer, Madhepura.

5. Block Development Officer, Kumarkhand, P.O. + P.S. Kumarkhand, District - Madhepura.

6. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna.

.... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Suresh Prasad For the State : Mr. Nirbhay Prashant, AC to SC 17 For the A.G. : Dr Anand KUmar =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 23-08-2016 Petitioner was an employee in the Agriculture Produce Marketing Board. After the Board got abolished, some of the persons including the present petitioner got absorbed and accommodated under the State Government in different departments. So far as this petitioner is concerned, he was appointed as a Panchayat Secretary. He joined that post on 2.9.2008 and then superannuated on 28.2.2011. He has raised a couple of grievance in the present writ application. One of them is that he has not been paid his salary from 2.9.2008 to 28.2.2009 on the ground that there was no allocation of

Patna High Court CWJC No.18660 of 2014 dt.23-08-2016 2/2 fund. He is also making claims under other heads including payment of pension, gratuity etc.

Though on behalf of the State a counter affidavit should have been filed on behalf of District Magistrate, Madhepura but that has not been done and the Panchyati Raj Department has put the onus on the District Magistrate.

In view of the above position instead of adjourning the matter and delaying decision making, the Court would direct that on an application being filed with a copy of this order with regard to the claims and grievances of the petitioner raised in the writ application, the District Magistrate will do the needful and authorize what the petitioner is entitled to in terms of the law and the rules within a period of four months.

Writ application is disposed of with the above direction. (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) sk AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 23.8.2016 Transmission Date