Uma Shankar Prasad v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2677 of 2014 =========================================================== Uma Shankar Prasad Son of Late Jagarnath Prasad aged about 72 years residing at Mohalla Bankers Colony Aam Gola Para Pokhar Lane No. 2, P.O. Ramna P.S. Kazimohammadpur, District- Muzaffarpur.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Agriculture Production Commissioner, Bihar, Patna, New Secretariate Bihar, Patna.

3. Secretary to the Government of Bihar, Department of Agriculture, Bihar Patna.

4. The Vice Chancellor Rajendra Agriculture University, Pusa District Samastipur (Bihar).

5. The Comptroller, Rajendra Agricultural University, Pusa, Samastipur (Bihar).

6. Finance Secretary to the Government of Bihar Department of Finance New Secretariate Bihar, Patna.

7. The Director Administration, Rajendra Agriculture University Pusa District Samastipur (Bihar).

.... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Jitendra Nath & Mr. Pankar, Advocates.

For the State :

Mr. Raju Giri, G.P.30.

For the RAU :

Mr. A. K. Upadhyay & Mr. C. M. Singh, Advocates.

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 10-12-2015 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The basic grievance of the petitioner is with regard to payment in the revised scale pursuant to his superannuation in 2001 and the last pay revision being effective from 01.01.2006. It transpires that the State has granted such revision as per the existing formula and also given him the benefit of the better scheme inasmuch as when according to the two prescribed modes of computation, the amount which is higher is supposed to be paid, the same has also been granted to the petitioner as would be

Patna High Court CWJC No.2677 of 2014 dt.10-12-2015 2/2 clear from the calculation shown in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is some error in the computation with regard to dearness relief which needs rectification.

In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed off with liberty to the petitioner to represent before the respondent no. 5 within one month from today along with a copy of the order pointing out the errors according to him in fixation of his pension pursuant to pay revision with effect from 01.01.2006. If the same is filed, the concerned officer shall look into the matter and pass a reasoned order within three weeks thereafter. Any payment required to be made pursuant to the order passed on the representation of the petitioner shall also be paid to him within the next three weeks.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.) P. Kumar U T