Sita Ram Choudhary v. The Bihar Intermediate Educati

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.5583 of 2011 ====================================================== Sita Ram Choudhary S/o Late Sukeshwar Choudhary, resident of mohalla Vijay Nagar, P.S. Patrakar Nagar, P.O. Lohianagar, District Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. The Bihar Intermediate Education Council, Through Its Chairman, Sri Rajmani Pd. Singh, Bihar Intermediate Education Council, Budha Marg, Patna (Now Bihar School Examination Senior Secondary Board).

3. Sri Rajmani Pd. Singh, the Chairman, Bihar Intermediate Education Council, Budh Marg, Patna (Now Bihar School Examination Senior Secondary Board).

4. Sri Lalan Jha, the Secretary, Bihar Intermediate Education Council, Budha Marg, Patna (Now Bihar School Examination Senior Secondary Board).

5. Sri Samrendra Pratap Singh, Lalit Narayan Mithila University Represented Through It Vice Chancellor, Darbhanga.

6. The Principal, Sri P.N. Lal Das Mahakavi Kalidas Smarak Mahavidyalay Trimuhan, Chandauna, Darbhanga.

7. The Bihar School Examination Board through Its Chairman Sri Rajmani Pd. Singh, Sinha Library Road, Patna.

8. The Chairman, Sri Rajmani Pd. Singh, Bihar School Examination Board, Sinha Library Road, Patna.

9. The Secretary, Sri Lalan Jha, Bihar School Examination Board, Sinha Library Road, Patna.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. S.S.Sundaram, Adv. For the Board : Mr. Ravi Prakash For the L.N.M.U. Mr. Chandra Mohan Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 01-12-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

In this case, admittedly the order of reversion was set aside by this Court in CWJC No. 9001 of 2004. After filing of the present case, the petitioner was

Patna High Court MJC No.5583 of 2011 (11) dt.01-12-2015 2/2 brought back to the original position. While making payment of retiral dues, it has been reduced by 1/3rd.

It has been submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the act of the Board is completely illegal in the eye of law, as without giving any notice and without any reason, the Board has reduced the pension of petitioner. He has further disputed, the payment under the different headings has already been paid correctly.

The counsel for the Board submits that whatever he is entitled has been paid to him.

As the order of compulsory retirement has been passed against the petitioner, be that as it may, this Court is not adjudicating the case with regard to the issue of compulsory retirement while sitting in the contempt jurisdiction. The petitioner, if so advised, may take a legal recourse as available in law.

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.

(Shivaji Pandey, J) Mahesh/- U