Patna High CourtCWJC/20858/2012disposed

Byas Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2016-10-22Mr. Justice Samarendra Pratap Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20858 of 2012 ====================================================== Byas Singh Son Of Late Raghunath Singh Resident Of Village- Bhusaulwa, Police Station- Kesariya, District- East Champaran At Motihari .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar

2. The District Magistrate, Siwan

3. The District Development Commissioner, Siwan

4. The Block Development Officer, Barhariya Block, District- Siwan

5. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Dr.Amrendra Kumar Dubey No.1 Mr. Ravi Shanker Pankaj For the State : Mr. Kumar Alok, S.C.7 For the Accountant G. : Mr.S.K.Jha, Advocate. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH ORAL ORDER 22-10-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner seeks direction to the respondent authorities for making payment of arrear of pension, as per 6th Pay Revision Commission as well as grant of one Assured Career Promotion (A.C.P.) since August,1999 along with interest @ 18 % per annum. The petitioner retired on 31.01.2003 from the post of Panchayat Sewak, Barhariya Block, Siwan.

A supplementary counter affidavit has been filed stating that the A.C.P. was not granted due to lapse of the petitioner, as his Service Book with necessary entries as well as

Patna High Court CWJC No.20858 of 2012 (4) dt.22-10-2016 2/2 proper sanction order were not sent. Howeever, as soon as the petitioner filed representation the regularization was made and thereafter balance of differential amount of Rs.40140.00 was paid. Learned counsel for the State submits that from Annexures-G and H of the supplementary counter affidavit it would appear that the pension of the petitioner has been revised and is being appropriately paid.

However, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for one week's time to verify the same.

In my view, the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State, particularly Annexures-G and H substantially redress the grievance of the petitioner. In case of any irregularity in calculation, it will be open to the petitioner to approach the authority concerned.

With the aforesaid liberty, this writ application is disposed of.

(Samarendra Pratap Singh, J) AnilKrSinha/- U