← Library
Patna High CourtCWJC/22562/2011disposed

Devendra Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2023-02-23Mr. Justice Madhuresh Prasad2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.22562 of 2011 ====================================================== DEVENDRA SINGH, son of Late Bhola Singh Basokund, P.O. Vaishali, PSSaraiya, District-Muzaffarpur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.

The Principal Secretary General Administration Govt. of Bihar,Patna. Null Null 3.

The Joint Secretary, General Administration Govt. of Bihar,Patna. 4.

District Magistrate,Muzaffarpur.

5.

Dy.Collector Establishment,Muzaffarpur.

6.

Block Development Officer Block Saraiya District-Muzaffarpur. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Sanjay Kr No.2, GA5 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 23-02-2023 Heard learned counsels for the parties.

2. The petitioner, a retired Jan Sewak, claims to have been reappointed in between 17.06.2010 to 31.07.2011. The honorarium for the said period has not been paid, bringing the petitioner to this Court.

3. In para-8 of the counter affidavit, it has been stated by the Respondents that the Rural Development Department has been requested to release allotment for payment of honorarium. No retired Jan Sewak appointed on honorarium has been paid for the same for want of allotment and as soon as allotment will be received, the payment would be made to the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that such

Patna High Court CWJC No.22562 of 2011(3) dt.23-02-2023 2/2 averment has been made in the counter affidavit filed in March, 2012, nearly 11 years back. Learned counsel, however, has no instructions from his client whether the honorarium has been paid till date.

5. The circumstances do not make out a case for issuance of any direction, as there is no instruction with learned counsel for the petitioner that payments have not been made to the petitioner pursuant to the stand of the Respondents in the counter affidavit.

6. Writ application is, therefore, disposed of.

7. The petitioner, however, if he is still aggrieved, would be at liberty to raise his claim before the appropriate Authority, in accordance with law.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J) shashank/- U