The State Of Bihar v. Prabha Kumari

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CIVIL REVIEW No.118 of 2022 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3958 of 2021 ====================================================== 1.

The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Bihar, Patna. 2.

The Principal Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Bihar, Patna.

3.

The Chief Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Bihar, Patna.

4.

The Principal Secretary, Industry Department, Bihar, Patna. 5.

The Joint Secretary, General Administrative Department, Bihar, Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

Prabha Kumari Wife of Late Uday Shankar Singh Resident at Adarshan Vihar Colony, Rukanpura, Road No.1, Police Station Rupuspur, DistrictPatna. 2.

The Accountant General (A and E), Beerchand Patel Path, Patna. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Md.Nadim Seraj, GP5 Mr.Dhirendra Kumar, Ac to Gp5 For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI ORAL ORDER 27-06-2025 Learned counsel for the review petitioners seeks to review Para 5 of the order dated 31.01.2022 to the extent that as on the date of disposal of CWJC No. 3958 of 2021 on 31.01.2022 grievance of the deceased was already settled. Therefore, Para 5 is required to be recalled. It is to be noted that there is a rider to the following extent:- "If the deceased employee is not entitled, in that event, detailed speaking order shall be passed and communicated to the petitioner as to why the deceased

Patna High Court C. REV. No.118 of 2022(3) dt.27-06-2025 2/2 employee is not entitled to 3rd A.C.P. The above exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order."

2. In this regard, in all fairness review petitioners should have passed a speaking order while contending that payments have already been made and therefore, question of extending the benefit of interest in the light of Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Vijay L. Mehrotra Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. reported in (2001) 9 SCC 687. To that effect if order is not passed as on this day, the same shall be passed and communicated to the Opposite Parties.

3. Accordingly, the present Civil Review No. 118 of 2022 stands disposed of.

(P. B. Bajanthri, J) abhishekkr/- U