Nageshwar Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14992 of 2015 ======================================================
1. Nageshwar Singh, Son of Late Sorai Singh, resident of Village+P.O.- Baikathpur, P.S.- Khusrupur, District- Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Collector, Patna, District- Patna.
2. The Treasury Officer, Patna at Collectoriate, Patna.
3. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna.
4. The Chief Accounts Officer, Office of the Accountant General, Bihar, Patna.
5. The Punjab National Bank through its Chief Manager at Exhibition Raod, Patna.
6. The Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank at Branch Office, Baikathpur, P.S.- Khusrupur, District- Patna. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha For the Respondent-State : Mr. Kundan Kumar, A.C. to S.C.- 32 Fro the Respodnent Nos.5 and 6 : Mr. Kumar Priya Ranjan, : Mr. Sushil Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 16-05-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Bank. The claim of the petitioner is pertaining to the Chattisgarh State from where the petitioner retired. The petitioner was appointed as Guard in Central Jail, Raipur, in the year 1956 and superannuated from the service in the year 1986 from Raipur.
After superannuation, the petitioner has been getting the pension through one P.P.O. No. When the State of
Patna High Court CWJC No.14992 of 2015 (2) dt.16-05-2016 2/2 Madhya Pradesh was bifurcated and at present Raipur is the capital of Chattisgarh, the petitioner was given another P.P.O. by the State of Chattisgarh and in the State of Bihar the Accountant General has also given separate P.P.O.
The statements made in the counter affidavit of the Punjab National Bank and the documents attached therein shows that the petitioner is getting proper pension in terms of 6th pay Revision Commission report.
In such view of the matter, the present writ petition has no substance to sustain in the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (Shivaji Pandey, J) pawan/- U