Umesh Prasad v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6135 of 2011 ====================================================== Umesh Prasad son of Late Ram Narayan Singh resident of Mohalla - Indrapuri (Bajitpur), P.O. - Barh, (R.S.), District - Patna .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar

2. Secretary Panchayat Raj Officer, New Secretariat, Patna

3. The District Magistrate, Patna

4. The District Panchayat Raj Officer, Sone Bhawan, Bir Chand Patel Marg, Patna - 1

5. The Block Development Officer, Barh, District - Patna

6. Block Panchayati Raj Officer, Barh, District - Patna

7. Sarpanch Gram Kuchhari, Nawadah, Barh, District - Patna .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

For the Respondent/s :

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 26-02-2016 Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Jha, learned counsel, who was assisted by Sri Rajesh Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AC to AAG No. 15.

The petitioner has approached this court invoking its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to direct the respondents to pay his remuneration as 'Nyay Mitra'.

It has been claimed that despite the fact that petitioner was rendering proper services, he is not being paid. In this case a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent no. 3, 4, 5 duly sworn by the Block

Patna High Court CWJC No.6135 of 2011 (12) dt.26-02-2016 2/2 Development Officer , Barh, district- Patna and in paragraph no. 6 a stand has been taken that out of Rs. 1,77,983/-, Rs. 60,000/- has already been paid to the petitioner and assurance has been given regarding payment of balance amount after availability of the said fund.

In view of the statement made in paragraph no. 6 of the counter affidavit of respondent no. 3, 4 and 5 it was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner to dispose of the writ petition with a direction that step may be taken to clear the rest amount without any delay.

In view of submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner which appears to be reasonable, the court considers to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents to take all steps so that the remaining due of the petitioner may be paid without any delay preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt / production of a copy of this order.

(Rakesh Kumar, J) Praful/- U