Kedar Nath Rai v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14510 of 2014 ====================================================== Kedar Nath Rai son of Late Paras Nath Rai Resident of Mohalla Bind Toli, P.O. Arah, P.S. Town, District Bhojpur at Arah . .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Agriculture Production Commissioner, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Agriculture Production Commissioner, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3. The Director, Agriculture Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

4. The Deputy Secretary, Agriculture Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

5. The Joint Director, Agriculture Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur.

6. The Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

7. The District Agriculture Officer, Vaishali.

8. The Sub Divisional Agricultural Officer, Vaishali.

9. The Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

10. The Additional Secretary, Finance Department (Personal Claim Fixation Cell), Government of Bihar, Patna.

11. The Treasury Officer, Muzaffarpur.

12. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna.

13. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Main Branch, Muzaffarpur. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shambhu Nath For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sc-21 Kumar Manish ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 30-01-2016 Heard Sri Shambhu Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AC to SC No. 21, Sri Uday Kumar, learned counsel for the Accountant General, Bihar as well as Sri Rakesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel who has appeared on behalf of the respondent / State Bank of India.

The petitioner, who retired in the year 2003 has approached this court with a prayer to direct the respondents to

Patna High Court CWJC No.14510 of 2014 (2) dt.30-01-2016 2/2 pay all the retiral dues.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that ofcourse during the pendency of the writ petition retiral dues have been paid but certain claims of the petitioner have not been considered in a proper way and he further submits that despite the fact that payment has been made much belatedly, on the retiral dues, no interest has been paid, whereas he claims that as per Government Circular the petitioner was entitled to claim interest. However, in view of the facts and circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner makes a prayer for disposal of the writ petition so that, the petitioner may represent before the authority concerned in respect of the claim of interest as well as other disputes.

The prayer is allowed.

The writ petition stands disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to file representation before the respondent no. 2. If such representation is filed within a period of six weeks from today, the court expects that the respondent no. 2 may examine the same and pass appropriate order in accordance with law preferably within a period of three months thereafter. Praful/- (Rakesh Kumar, J) U