Patna High CourtCWJC/7290/2008disposed

Mahendra Prasad Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2015-01-16Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7290 of 2008 ====================================================== Mahendra Prasad Singh, Son of Late Ram Pukar Singh, resident of Rampur Kumar Kole, P.0. - Vaishali, District- Vaishali, Bihar. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The Director Secondary Education, Department of Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

3. The District Education Officer, Vaishali District at & P.0. Vaishali.

4. The District Accounts Officer, Vaishali at and P.0.- Vaishali.

5. The Accountant General (A & E) and P.0. Vaishali.

6. The Senior Accounts Officer, Bihar, Patna. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rakesh Kumar and Mr. Abdul Hakin, Advocates.

For the State : Mr. Dhurjati Kumar Prasad, G.P. 7.

For the Accountant General : Mr. S. M. Ehtesham, Advocate. ===================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL ORDER 8.

16.01.2015 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Though, in view of the materials brought on record in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State and the Accountant General, Bihar, this Court finds that the admissible dues of the petitioner have been paid to him, but learned counsel for the petitioner submits that statutory interest on gratuity has not been paid.

Be that as it may, the admitted dues of the petitioner having been paid, the writ application stands disposed off. However, the petitioner shall have liberty to represent before the District Education Officer, Vaishali (respondent no. 3) with regard to payment of statutory interest

Patna High Court CWJC No.7290 of 2008 (8) dt.16-01-2015 2/2 on gratuity. If the authorities find that the claim of the petitioner for interest on gratuity is admissible in law, an order to this effect shall be passed within four weeks of the filing of the representation. If any payment pursuant to the same is required to be made, the same shall also be done within three weeks thereafter. As far as gratuity is concerned, the petitioner having himself agreed for recovery of the excess amount drawn by him from his gratuity, the action of the respondents in doing so cannot be faulted.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.) P. Kumar U