Birendra Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

Patna High Court CWJC No.3280 of 2013 (3) dt.07-01-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3280 of 2013 ======================================================

1. Birendra Singh Son Of Late Sarda Nand Singh Resident Of Village - Bariyarpur, Post Office - Akorah, Police Station - Dinara, District - Rohtas At Present Posted As Assistant Accountant , Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Branch - Piro, District - Bhojpur .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar , Through Its Principal Secretary, Department Of CoOperative , Government Of Bihar, Patna

2. Registrar, Co-Operative Societies, Bihar, Patna

3. Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Ara, Tapeshwar Bhawan, Mangal Pandey Path, Ara, Post Office - Ara, District - Bhojpur Through Its Managing Director

4. Managing Director, Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Ara, Tapeshwar Bhawan, Mangal Pandey Path, Ara, Post Office - Ara, District - Bhojpur .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ram Krishna Singh For the Respondent No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Ishwari Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 07-01-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Bank.

In this case, the petitioner was working with Central Cooperative Bank, Ara, on the post of Assistant Accountant. For the first time, he was dismissed on 16.08.1994, which was challenged in C.W.J.C. No.11699 of 1994, which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 02.11.1999. Against which, the Bank has filed LPA No.1541 of 1999, which was dismissed. As per the claim of the petitioner, the order was not complied by the respondent-Bank in its true later and sprit, but as

Patna High Court CWJC No.3280 of 2013 (3) dt.07-01-2016 per the Bank, the order has been complied with. A statement to that effect has been made in paragraph Nos. 6 and 7 of the Counter Affidavit. In reply, the petitioner has filed a Rejoinder, mentioning therein he has not been paid what he is entitled, as this is disputed questions of fact, cannot be gone into the present proceeding. If the petitioner so advise, he may file a proper representation to the authority concerned, who will examine whether the petitioner is entitled to any extra amount or not ?, if authority arrives to finding that the petitioner is still entitled for extra amount, the same will be paid to him in accordance with law.

With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.

(Shivaji Pandey, J) ajaypd./pawan U