Sanjay Kumar v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19539 of 2016 ====================================================== Sanjay Kumar, Son of Late Hari Lal, Resident of Mohalla Gurudwara Road, near Akhara, Gaya, P.S. Kotwali, District- Gaya. Presently posted as Block Welfare Officer, Sasaram, Rohtas.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Welfare Department Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna.

2. The Secretary, Department of SC/ST Welfare Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

3. The Director, Department of SC/ST Welfare Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

4. The Deputy Director, Welfare (SC/ST), Patna Division, Patna.

5. The District Welfare Officer, Rohtas at Sasaram.

6. The District Welfare Officer, Saran at Chapra. .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dudh Nath Singh, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Krishnakant Singh, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER 19-06-2017 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The writ petition was filed praying for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to make payment of arrears of salary of the petitioner which is stated to have remained pending since the year 2004.

A counter affidavit has been filed and which practically admits the grievance of the petitioner. It also informs that necessary disciplinary action has been taken against the defaulting officers. While making such statement, it is stated at paragraph 8 that the arrears of salary has been paid to the petitioner and necessary action has also been taken for payment of differential

Patna High Court CWJC No.19539 of 2016 (3) dt.19-06-2017 amount as per 6th Central Pay Revision Committee recommendations. Such is the statement made at paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit and at paragraph 10 it is informed by the respondent District Welfare Officer that whatsoever admitted dues remains pending, it would also be paid to the petitioner within one month.

There is no rejoinder to the counter affidavit so filed and thus, in view of the statement made at paragraphs 8 and 10 of the counter affidavit, the writ petition is disposed of. (Jyoti Saran, J) Surendra/- U